Grammar and Interaction: Pivots in German Conversation (Studies in Discourse and Grammar)

Grammar and Interaction

Studies in Discourse and Grammar (SiDaG) Studies in Discourse and Grammar is a monograph series providing a forum for research on grammar as it emerges from and is accounted for by discourse contexts. The assumption underlying the series is that corpora reflecting language as it is actually used are necessary, not only for the verification of grammatical analyses, but also for understanding how the regularities we think of as grammar emerge from communicative needs. Research in discourse and grammar draws upon both spoken and written corpora, and it is typically, though not necessarily, quantitative. Monographs in the series propose explanations for grammatical regularities in terms of recurrent discourse patterns, which reflect communicative needs, both informational and socio-cultural.

Editors Sandra A. Thompson

Paul J. Hopper

University of California at Santa Barbara Department of Linguistics Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA

Carnegie Mellon University Department of English Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA

Volume 21 Grammar and Interaction. Pivots in German conversation by Emma Betz

Grammar and Interaction Pivots in German conversation

Emma Betz Kansas State University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Betz, Emma.   Grammar and interaction : pivots in German conversation / by Emma Betz.        p. cm. (Studies in Discourse and Grammar, issn 0928-8929 ; v. 21) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.  German language--Spoken German. 2.  German language--Grammar. 3.  German language--Textbooks for foreign speakers--English.  I. Title. PF3074.8.B44   2008 438.3'421--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 2631 0 (Hb; alk. paper)

2008033088

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

For Tom

Table of contents

List of tables and figures Acknowledgments chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Studying language in use: Syntax as a resource for constructing turns  3 1.2 Previous research on pivot construction  5 1.3 Outline of study  8

xi xiii

1

chapter 2 Preliminaries 13 2.1 Introduction  13 2.2 Data and transcription conventions  13 2.3 The syntax of spoken German  15 2.3.1 Basic word order rules and the German Satzklammer/ “sentence brace”  15 2.3.1.1 Basic word order rules  15 2.3.1.2 The German Satzklammer/“sentence brace”  17 2.3.2 Rightward turn expansions and verb-first constructions in German  20 2.3.2.1 Rightward turn expansions  20 2.3.2.2 Verb-first constructions  23 2.4 A typology of syntactic pivot constructions  26 2.4.1 The pivot construction: Overall composition  26 2.4.1.1 Syntactic structure of the pivot construction  26 2.4.1.2 Prosodic gestalt of the pivot construction  31 2.4.2 The periphery: Three types of constructions  32 2.4.2.1 Mirror-image constructions  32 2.4.2.2 Modified mirror-image constructions  33 2.4.2.3 Modified constructions  34 2.4.3 The pivot element: Syntactic function and functional shifts  35 2.4.3.1 The structure and syntactic function of the pivot element  35 2.4.3.2 Shifts in the syntactic function of the pivot element  36 2.5 Summary   37

 Pivots in German Conversation

chapter 3 Pivot constructions as a syntactic resource for turn-taking: Managing overlap 3.1 Introduction  39 3.1.1 Turn-taking in interaction  40 3.1.2 Syntactic pivots and turn continuation  42 3.2 Pivots used in post-overlap environments  44 3.2.1 Overlap management in conversation  44 3.2.2 Data discussion  45 3.2.2.1 Dealing with overlap in telephone interactions  45 3.2.2.2 Dealing with overlap in face-to-face interactions  51 3.2.2.3 The relevance of gaze in structuring talk-in-interaction  61 3.3 Discussion  67 chapter 4 Pivots at sequential and topic boundaries: Steering the emerging direction of the talk 4.1 Introduction  69 4.2 Managing competing actions at topic initiation  72 4.2.1 Resumption after competitive overlap and interruption  72 4.2.2 Resumption after a side sequence  83 4.3 Managing competing trajectories at topic closure  87 4.3.1 Resumption after competitive overlap and interruption  87 4.3.2 Expanding a topic or an action sequence  92 4.4 Discussion  95 chapter 5 Pivot constructions as a resource for managing repair: Searching for a word 5.1 Introduction  97 5.1.1 Conversational repair  97 5.1.2 The target phenomenon  98 5.1.3 Properties of word searches in interaction  99 5.1.4 Chapter outline  102 5.2 Pivots used as a resource in the activity of searching for a word  103 5.2.1 Interactional environment and pivot types  103 5.2.2 Doing searching: Gaining time during a search  106 5.2.3 Done searching: Signaling the end of a search  109 5.2.3.1 Mirror-image constructions  110 5.2.3.2 Modified (mirror-image) constructions  117

39

69

97



Table of contents 

5.2.4 Preliminary summary  124 5.2.5 Did searching: Verbalizing the just prior action as a search  125 5.3 Discussion  134

chapter 6 Pivot constructions in embedded self-correction: Changes in action and epistemic stance 6.1 Introduction  137 6.1.1 Procedures to deal with problems in interaction: Exposed vs. embedded correction  137 6.1.2 The target of self-correction  138 6.2 Pivot constructions as a resource for embedded self-correction  139 6.2.1 Changes in verbal quality: Corrections involving announcements and informings  139 6.2.2 Changes in syntactic format: Corrections involving inquiries  150 6.2.2.1 Self-initiated shifts  151 6.2.2.2 Shifts initiated by co-participant conduct  161 6.3 Discussion  166 chapter 7 Concluding discussion 7.1 Summary of findings  169 7.2 Implications  173 7.2.1 Spoken and written language  174 7.2.2 Syntactic phenomena in spoken language  174 7.2.3 Linguistic units in spoken language  177 7.3 Directions for further research  178 7.3.1 Phonetic features of pivot constructions in German  178 7.3.2 Other interactional functions of pivot constructions in German  179 7.3.3 Pivot constructions as a syntactic practice across languages  181 appendix a Transcription conventions a.1 Jeffersonian transcription conventions  183 a.2 Transcription conventions based on GAT  184 a.3 Other conventions used  184 appendix b Abbreviations for grammatical descriptions

137

169

183

185



Pivots in German Conversation

References Name index Subject index

187 205 207

List of tables and figures Table 2.1  The Satzklammer/‘sentence brace’ in German sentences Figure 2.1  Position of the pivot element in the German sentence structure (dialekte 2) Figure 2.2  Syntactic completion in a pivot construction, ex. 1 (vancouver) Figure 2.3  Syntactic completion in a pivot construction, ex. 2 (streicheleinheiten) Figure 3.1 Doppelkopfabend: seating of participants around the table and location of camera Figure 4.1  Resumption after competitive overlap: schema (shakespeare) Figure 5.1  Closing a word search and resuming the main line of action (motorradunfall) Figure 5.2  Accomplishing an action shift within one TCU (flug nach amerika)

Acknowledgments First and foremost, I want to thank everybody who allowed me to record their conversations – many of them going out of their way to help – and thus provided the basis for this work. The process of writing would not have been possible without the support of my teachers, colleagues, friends, and family. I owe much to Makoto Hayashi, Andrea Golato, and Irene Koshik for introducing me to the field of Conversation Analysis and inspiring me to write this book. Andrea Golato supported me throughout graduate school and beyond. What I learned from her as a scholar and a teacher has been invaluable. I want to thank those who helped in the data collection process, discussed data or ideas with me, and critically read part or all of this work: Tobias Barske, Claudia Bornholdt, Makoto Hayashi, Amanda Huensch, Hedwig Hotz, Marianne Kalinke, Irene Koshik, Numa Markee, Thomas Parker, Mi-Suk Seo, and Alfred Simonis. The participants at the 2006 Conversation Analysis Advanced Study Institute and at numerous other data sessions helped me develop some of my ideas and collect additional data examples. I also wish to thank Sandy Thompson for providing much encouragement and feedback, and Isja Conen, the editor at Benjamins, for guiding me through the publication process. I am grateful to my friends and family who provided welcome distractions from this work, especially Tobias and Valerie Barske, Amanda Huensch and Alex Parker, Joan and Michael Parker, Hedwig and Michael Hotz, and Maria Simonis. My most heartfelt thanks goes to Thomas Parker, to whom I dedicate this book.

chapter 1

Introduction Social interaction is always situated in a specific context and unfolds in real time. Just as interaction itself, the resources for interaction – non-vocal (e.g., posture, gesture, eye-gaze) and vocal (e.g., prosody, lexical choice, grammar) – are structured and organized in real time and in collaboration with the audience or coparticipants. Specifically with respect to the organizational unit of a sentence, Goodwin (1979: 97–8) notes: Sentences emerge with conversation. However, in traditional linguistics it has been assumed that the analysis of sentences can be performed upon examples isolated from such an interactive process. In opposition to such a view it will be argued … that sentences in natural conversation emerge as the products of a process of interaction between speaker and hearer and that they mutually construct the turn at talk.

This book is concerned with sentence-level resources and their construction in interaction. It is a micro-analysis exemplifying the interplay between the linguistic structure of utterances and the actions they are deployed to fulfill in conversation, i.e., between grammar and interaction. Specifically, it examines how participants in German conversation use a syntactic pivot construction as a systematic resource to negotiate boundaries in the organization of turns and larger sequences and to address trouble of various kinds on a moment-by-moment basis. An example of this type of syntactic construction can be seen in fragment (1.1). In this construction, two syntactic structures (pre-pivot+pivot and pivot+post-pivot) are connected by a shared element (the pivot element) in a way that makes it difficult to determine to which of the two structures this shared element belongs. This results in a characteristic three-part structure.1

.  Segment (1.1) is taken from my data of telephone interactions in conversational German. The transcription shows aspects of speech delivery, with, e.g., capitalization reflecting a volume increase (see Appendix A). The first line provides the original speech, the second line an interlinear English gloss (including capital letter abbreviations for grammatical properties of words, see Appendix B), and the third or fourth line an idiomatic English translation. An additional line may be added to demarcate the constituting elements in a pivot structure. Following Walker (2007), I use the terms “pre-pivot,” “pivot” and “post-pivot” to represent the three recognizable parts of a



Pivots in German Conversation

(1.1) merengeˉ[30_Ingo1B_264] da

gibts

hier jetzt son meRE:nge heißt das. such+a ((name)) is+named that. | ˉpre-pivot | pivot |ˉ post-pivot | nowˉthereˉisˉthis meRE:nge (isˉwhat)ˉit’sˉcalled. there exists here now

The shared element in (1.1) is the proper noun meRE:nge, which is the name of a bar. However, in the linear emergence of the construction, it does not become apparent that this element constitutes a place of transition until heißt is uttered, the second constituent element of the second syntactic construction (meRE:nge heißt das). In written modern German, such structures are considered ungrammatical (Schwitalla 2003: 34–5), although they are documented for Old, Middle High and also Early Modern German texts (e.g., Behagel 1928; Boon 1982; Gärtner 1969; Karg 1925; W. Schröder 1985). While syntactic pivots have been extensively described as a written phenomenon in earlier stages of German, they have found little attention as a spoken phenomenon2 (Betz 2006; Franck 1985; Poncin 2003; Sandig 1973; Scheutz 1992, 2005; P. Schröder 1997; Tischer 1997) and next to none as a syntactic practice embedded in its communicative context (Betz 2006; Scheutz 2005). This work analyzes syntactic pivot constructions as an interactional phenomenon. It adopts a view of grammar as embedded within the larger organization of social conduct and thus as a resource that both shapes and is shaped by interaction. In this conceptualization of grammar, “the linguistic shape of an utterance is intertwined with the changing relationships among participants over interactional time” (Schegloff, Ochs & Thompson 1996: 44). Guided by this view and using the methodology of conversation analysis (CA), this study undertakes a close analysis of the pivot construction in spoken German as an interactional practice whose shape and usage is determined by factors such as (1) turn-taking and sequence and topic organization (cf., e.g., Auer 2005a; Button & Casey 1985; Ford 1993, 2001, 2002b, 1996; Jefferson 1993; Maynard 1980; Schegloff 2002, 2007), (2) changes

pivot construction: “Pre-pivot” refers to the stretch of talk that extends from the beginning of the TCU to the shared “pivot” element; “post-pivot” denotes the structural elements uttered after the shared element up to the next point of possible completion. “Pre-pivot + pivot” and “pivot + post-pivot” thus refer to the two syntactic structures that are merged in a pivot construction to form one syntactic unit. They may, as is the case for (1.1), be quite different in content and even implement distinct actions (see Chapter 2 for a typology). .  This despite the fact that some of the studies on literary texts claim that pivot constructions are a manifestation of spoken discourse (Gärtner 1969; Haupt 1871 [reprint 1979]: 391; Karg 1925: 39).



Chapter 1.  Introduction

in participation and attention to an action or activity (e.g., Duranti 1997: 294–314; C. Goodwin 1981, 1984, 1992, 1986; Hayashi 2005; Streeck 1993, 1994), (3) trouble resolution (e.g., Egbert 1996, 1997, 2004; Fox, Hayashi & Jasperson 1996; Jefferson 1974, 1987, 1979, 1987c, 1992, 1997; Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977; Selting 1987b; Uhmann 2001; T. Weber 1998) and (4) changes in participants’ state of knowledge, affect, and affiliation (e.g., Betz & Golato 2008; Gardner 2002; Golato 2005, 2008; Heritage & Raymond 2005; Niemeier & Dirven 1997; Raymond & Heritage 2006; Sidnell 2005; Sorjonen 2001; Steensig & Drew 2008; Stivers 2008; Wu 2004). By uncovering formal and functional regularities of pivot constructions within the framework of interactional linguistics (Auer, Couper-Kuhlen & Müller 1999, 2004; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 1996; Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson 1996; Selting & Couper-Kuhlen 2001), this study contributes to the description of the structure of German language in use. Moreover, this provides a departure point for cross-linguistic work that investigates the relationship between language typology and the structure of communicative practices (cf. CouperKuhlen & Ono 2007; Fox et al. 1996; Fox, Maschler & Uhmann 2006; Givon 1988; Hayashi 2003a).

1.1  Studying language in use: Syntax as a resource for constructing turns In analyzing talk-in-interaction (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974; Schegloff 1996b), CA stresses co-participants’ perspectives, talk as action, and social interaction as a highly ordered phenomenon (Atkinson & Heritage 1984; Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998). The primary units of analysis are sequences defined as “courses of action enacted through turns-at-talk” (Schegloff 2007: 2). Furthermore, the regularities of turn and sequence organization are the means by which participants organize actions, negotiate meaning and accomplish understanding. Turn-taking regularities include establishing who gets to speak when, where, and for how long in a way that is not pre-allocated, but “locally managed, party-administered, interactionally controlled and sensitive to recipient design” (Sacks et al. 1974:  696). In other words, talk in interaction is constructed moment by moment, unit by unit, each bit dealt with by the participants in light of what preceded it and, as the talk continues, of the understanding that is displayed by the co-participant(s); that is, in its sequential context (Auer & Di Luzio 1992; Drew & Heritage 1992; Duranti & Goodwin 1992; C. Goodwin 1995; McHoul 2008; Schegloff 1987b). By this fundamental principle, talk is always designed for a specific co-participant and in interaction with the unfolding conduct of this audience. Just as speakers construct their vocal and non-vocal conduct with respect to their co-participants’ behavior, participants who are not currently speakers also closely monitor unfolding





Pivots in German Conversation

talk and display their understanding of it (Sacks 1987, 1981; Schegloff & Sacks 1973).3 Because talk occurs in real time, its central properties are “directionality” (Schegloff et al. 1996: 19), the emergence and availability of observable structure as interactional time elapses, and “projectability” (Schegloff 1980; Streeck 1995), the recognizability of future trajectories before the entire course of action has unfolded. Participants to interaction continuously project the possible completion of a turn or turn constructional unit (“TCU,” Sacks 1974) in progress, thereby also projecting appropriate or relevant points of entry. They do so in real time and using the regularities of turn-taking practices, grammatical structure (syntax, word order rules), and prosody as resources (cf., e.g., Auer 1996a; Aure & Rönfeld 2004; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 1996, 1996; Ford & Thompson 1996; Goodwin & Goodwin 1987; Schegloff 1996b, 1998; Selting 1995a, 1996a, 2000, 2001, 2005a). Thus, projection is a crucial resource for meaning-making that participants have at their disposal as they move through the conversation. Within conversation analysis, the notion of projection has received most attention on the level of action projection (Bilmes 1988; Hayashi 2004b; Lerner 1996a; Schegloff 1988, 2007), and on the level of syntactic projection (Auer 2005b; Günthner 2008; Lerner 1991, 1996b, 2002, 2004a; Tanaka 1999).4 This notion of a participant’s ability to employ knowledge of syntactic structures in interaction figures centrally in interactional linguistics, particularly in work on projection and repair practices (Fox et al. 1996; Selting & Couper-Kuhlen 2001; Uhmann 2001). It is fundamental to an understanding of pivot constructions: The importance of projection for speakers and co-participants in determining points of possible TCU and turn completion (and thus points of possible entry) is highlighted in syntactic pivots. Relying on word order rules in German and on the notion of “syntactic completion,” pivot constructions provide a strategy to connect two syntactic

.  For intriguing examples of co-construction of talk-in-interaction, see Ferrara (1992), C. Goodwin (1979, 1981, 1984), Hayashi (2003a, 2003b), Hayashi et al. (2002), and Lerner (1991, 1993, 1996b). .  Although grammatical projection figures centrally in my work, it should be noted that projection is not confined to the level of grammar. Besides talk projecting a specific structure or action by way of grammatical (morphological, syntactic) properties, gestures can precede and project talk to come. Thus, bodily behavior can serve as a visible pointer to what is about to happen and can give clues to the co-participants as to how it should be understood. Co-participants can use this kind of “visual projection” (Hayashi 2005: 24) to demonstrate their understanding of the ongoing action, for example by providing an utterance that fits in the emerging structure of the talk, possibly even a verbal rendition of the element projected (cf. Hayashi 2003b, 2005; Mori & Hayashi 2006; Streeck 1995).



Chapter 1.  Introduction

structures through a common element, resulting in one extended TCU (Betz 2006; Selting 1998a: 239–240). Moreover, they serve specific conversational goals and thus exemplify how “participants’ syntax seems to be shaped . . . by the requirements of talk-in-interaction” (Lerner 1991: 456). I argue that pivot constructions and their functions can only be grasped if we understand the temporality and interactional nature of spoken language and view grammar as usage-based and negotiable. Extended work on the situated use of pivot constructions will increase our understanding of the emergence of grammatical structures in interaction and of the process by which grammar and interaction organize each other. 1.2  Previous research on pivot constructions Previous work on pivots in interaction has focused on such structures at the level of syntax, specifically as resources for conversational repair, and at the level of topic structuring (lexico-semantics). Even though my work is exclusively concerned with syntactic pivots in German, work on topical pivots will be briefly considered here as it illustrates that pivot-like structures can operate on various levels of language.5 Pivots as places of transition described on other interactional levels and in different languages contribute to understanding the nature of the phenomenon I investigate in this study.

.  In fact, pivot structures also seem to operate on other structural levels, including phonology and morphology. Schegloff (1979) notes the occurrence of a sound pivot in his collection of self-initiated self-repairs. Speaker A has been accused of exaggerating (Schegloff 1979:  275, Pre-Party, p. 4):

(a) A: DON’T SAY that I’m exa-just say I’m a liar.

The pivot element in this example is the sound “j”. In my collection of spoken German e­ xamples, I furthermore found the following example of a “morphological pivot.” The pivot element is, at least in the first part of the construction, the bound morpheme denk/“think” in the verb nachdenken/“to think about.” In German, subordinate clauses exhibit verb-final ordering and main clauses that follow subordinate clauses exhibit verb-first ordering (see Chapter 2). Hence, the compound sentence “when I think of that, I always think ...” would literally exhibit the following ordering of elements in German: “when I of that think, think I always ....” In segment (b), the verb denk/“think” is both part of the final verb of the subordinate clause (nachdenk/“(I) think about”) and the initial verb of the main clause (denk/“(I) think”): (b) E:

wenn ich dadrüber nachdenk ich mir auch immer ... when I that about+think I refl also always ... | pre-pivot |pivot| post-pivot | when I of-that-think I also always to myself





Pivots in German Conversation

Within the topical development of talk, a certain token, expression, or saying can serve as a semantic “bridge” between topics. Such a topical pivot “bring[s] one matter to an end while simultaneously opening up the opportunity of introducing the next” (Holt & Drew 2005: 38). Segment (1.2), in which a figurative summary is used as a pivot, serves as an example: (1.2)

lateˉbloomersˉ(takenˉfromˉHoltˉ&ˉDrewˉ2005: 37–38)

1 D:ˉ .hhhˉhhhˉAndˉI-ˉYouˉknowˉit-forˉsomeˉreasonˉheˉstruckˉme 2 asˉneverˉevenˉbeingˉableˉtoˉgetˉoutˉofˉhighˉschoolˉwellˉI’s 3 talkingˉtoˉhimˉwellˉhe’sˉgo-he’s got a year left at SMU in 4 lawˉschool. 5 M:ˉ hhˉ[hˉhuhˉhuh]ˉhuhˉ[huhˉ.hhh].hhh= 6 D:ˉ [hˉhˉh ] [hˉhˉhˉh ] 7 D:ˉ =andˉhe’sˉrea:lˉcuteˉnow → 8 M:ˉ .hhhˉWe:llˉseeˉthatˉjustˉgoesˉtoˉshowˉyouˉhe’sˉaˉlate → 9 bloomer 10 D:ˉ Yeahˉheˉwasˉre:alˉhandsome 11 (1.0) → 12 M:ˉ Youˉknowˉ(0.4)ˉsometimesˉtheˉlateˉbloomers’llˉfoolˉyou 13 (0.6) 14 D:ˉ Yeahˉthet’sˉtrue 15 M:ˉ Iˉtoldˉyouˉaboutˉmyˉfriendˉwhoseˉson graduatedˉfrom .hhhˉA 16 andˉ[M:ˉ] 17 D:ˉ [ye:]ah

By summarizing talk about a prior matter, the figurative summary in lines 8–9 contributes to bringing the current matter to a close (cf. Schegloff & Sacks 1973) and is thus used as a resource for topic transition: M’s turn that follows the pivotal expression (line 12) is made to connect the new matter (the story of someone else who might belong to the category of “late bloomers”) to the previous expression through repetition and generalization. Thus, “pivotal topic transition” (Holt & Drew 2005:  35) constitutes an alternative to “disjunctive” (Jefferson 1984) or radical topic shifts, where participants do visible work to produce a clear demarcation between two topics.6 It is also different from stepwise movement or “topic shading” (Jefferson 1984; Schegloff & Sacks 1973) in that topical pivots usually afford the transition from one topic to the next within one turn or TCU. Besides figurative expressions, elements that have been shown to serve as places of topical transition include (1) yeah (Jefferson 1993) in English, (2) okay or okay then placed sequentially to achieve a shift “from prior to next-positioned matters” (Beach .  By using turn-initial “misplacement markers” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973) such as “well,” “so,” “but,” “alright” with increased amplitude (Beach 1993) and “anyway” in English or übrigens/“by the way” (Egbert 2003; Zifonun, Hoffmann & Strecker 1997: 899) in German.



Chapter 1.  Introduction

1993: 326) in English and ok used to “link two actions” (Barske 2006: 62; in press) in German, and (3) a “promise of action” within the typical succession of actions in a specific type of alarm call in Swedish (Nordberg 1999). This dual, “Janus faced nature” (Holt & Drew 2005: 46) is the essential characteristic of pivots, regardless of the structural level on which they are employed: They simultaneously connect back and look forward. While in the case of topical pivots, the connection is made through essentially semantic means, syntactic pivoting operates through grammatical resources, specifically word order, and prosody. Syntactic pivot constructions as a communicative practice have been studied in different Germanic languages, notably German (Franck 1985; Sandig 1973; Scheutz 1992, 2005), Swedish (Norén 2003b, 2007), and English (Walker 2007). They have also been documented for Danish (Steensig 2001:  134), Norwegian (Svennevig, in prep., cited in Norén 2007:  39–40), and Dutch (Franck 1985). Much less work has been done for other languages: To my knowledge, syntactic pivot constructions have been noted for French (Kotschi 2001: 1345–46), Finnish (Hakulinen et al. 2004), and Korean (Yoon, K.-E., personal communication, 19. December 2002). Furthermore, Tanaka (2001) describes a related syntactic strategy for Japanese. A detailed review and critical discussion of earlier studies on pivot constructions has been undertaken elsewhere (Norén 2007: 23–52) and will not be repeated here. Rather, I focus here on some aspects of prior work in German that were essential in motivating the present study and shaping its goals. The earliest systematic approaches to syntactic pivots in spoken German that can be termed conversation-oriented (Franck 1985; Sandig 1973; Scheutz 1992) locate communicative functions such as self-repair (Scheutz 1992), focusing strategies (Franck 1985), or answering two questions in one sentence (Franck 1985), and acknowledge prosodic features as essential in classifying pivot constructions.7 However, in all of these studies, the attribution of cognitive processes and the reference to errors in sentence planning or production figure centrally in motivating the deployment of a pivot. Consequently, most studies on pivot constructions undertaken so far implicitly maintain a view of pivot constructions as “deviant in the sense of logically incoherent structures and products in need of explanation and justification” (Norén 2007: 52). Scheutz (2005) combines a conversation analytic approach of viewing pivot constructions as a technique for handling problems (Sacks 1992:  146; Schegloff 1979) with a construction grammar approach to information and topic structure similar to Franck’s (1985). This allows

.  A systematic account of the phonetic design of pivots in English can be found in Walker (2007) and will be discussed in Chapter 2 and 3.





Pivots in German Conversation

him to uncover various conversationally motivated uses of pivot constructions, including functions that had not been ascribed to pivots before, such as their use for the framing of reported discourse. Overall, however, the discussion in Scheutz’s study maintains a strong “traditional” focus on pivots as repair practices.8 Moreover, although Scheutz (2005) provides transcripts of relevant examples, a detailed interactional (sequential) account for the documented functions, including a demonstration of participant’s orientations to the ongoing activities (topic focusing, repair) remains to be provided. This study takes a view of pivot constructions as meaningful patterns in their own right. It utilizes the methodological tools of conversation analysis to reveal how speakers construct and co-participants orient to pivot constructions, thereby demonstrating that participants to interaction actually treat these structures as orderly resources and utilize them systematically for responding to a variety of changes in structure of, among other things, participation, affiliation, and information status in discourse. This work both expands the discussion of practices already outlined in previous work on German (e.g., pivots as a resource for selfrepair) and provides in-depth analyses of further systematic uses of pivots. It includes the discussion of functions not previously acknowledged in research on German (e.g., pivots as a resource for resolving overlap) and functions not yet described for any language (e.g., pivots used to manage recipient design problems in reference formulation, pivots as a strategy for embedded self-correction). This study finds that pivots are involved in preempting or dealing with interactional trouble of various kinds and it may thus be viewed as providing further justification for a focus on pivots as repair strategies. However, it also demonstrates that pivots are by no means limited to overt repair as defined in the conversation analytic tradition. One of the main findings of this work is in fact that pivots may constitute an alternative to – not a specialized type of – repair practices (Chapters 3 and 6). The different analytic chapters of this book will be outlined below.

1.3  Outline of study The structure of syntactic pivot constructions draws on grammatical properties of a given language, particularly word order rules, which recipients can use to project the development and the possible completion point of an utterance-in-progress. To make this study accessible to readers who are unfamiliar with the structure of

.  This can be noted for other cursory treatments of pivot constructions in usage-based studies of German syntax (Schwitalla 2003: 129; Selting 2001: 253; Uhmann 2001).



Chapter 1.  Introduction

spoken German, I review relevant aspects of spoken German in Chapter 2. I then outline how pivots are distinguishable from verb-first constructions (Auer 1993) and rightward expansions of turns (Auer 1991, 1992, 1996a, 2006, 2007b; CouperKuhlen & Ono 2007; Selting 1994), taking into consideration features of the syntax and phonetic design of such structures in German. In Chapter 2, I also provide a more detailed definition of syntactic pivot constructions and give an overview of the different structural types I documented for my corpus. Chapters 3–6 constitute the core of my research. In these chapters, I locate the functions of syntactic pivot constructions as a resource within fundamental principles in the organization of social interaction through talk: turn-taking organization (Chapter 3), sequence and topic organization (Chapter 4), and the organization of repair and other resources to deal with trouble in interaction (Chapters 5 and 6). The basic, or context-free, property of pivot constructions is that they allow a speaker to extend an utterance beyond a point of possible completion in a most unmarked way. In each of the analysis chapters, I explore how speakers use this property in context-specific ways in response to changes in their immediate interactional environment. The analyses also attempt to reveal if participants themselves orient to different types of pivot constructions (see Chapter 2), that is, if certain forms of such constructions (e.g., pivot constructions in which the pre-pivot and post-pivot structures are mirror-images vs. examples such as (1.1)) correlate with certain functions. Hence, my work examines if distinctions made on the basis of structural features have meaning in interaction, thereby attempting to refine the findings on form-function correlations reported by Scheutz (2005). Chapter 3 describes pivot constructions as a resource for overlap management. To describe the function pivots serve in this environment and to attempt a distinction between pivot constructions and other practices for turn extension in German, I first provide an overview of the various strategies speakers may employ to extend a turn beyond a point of possible completion or suppress the signalling of transition relevance (Auer 1996a; Aure & Rönfeld 2004; Gilles 2001; Kern 2007; Rönfeld & Auer 2002; Selting 1996a, 2000, 2001, 2005a). I then discuss examples from telephone and face-to-face interactions that exemplify the use of syntactic pivot constructions as a device to extend an overlapped utterance and outlast another speaker and to manage the demands put on the stretch of interaction following overlap. In this function, pivots constitute a strategy to recover possibly impaired talk that is less marked than recycling strategies described to date (Schegloff 1987c, 1998, 2000; Uhmann 2001). The function of pivot constructions as a turn-keeping device and safeguard against speaker change holds particular relevance to the study of topic development and the organization of larger organizational units in conversation, e.g., story-telling sequences. In Chapter 4, I analyze pivots employed to bridge sequential



 Pivots in German Conversation

and topical junctures. For example, a pivot may be used to connect an utterance to the previous talk and at the same time launch into a multi-unit telling, or a pivot may enable a speaker to perform a smooth shift from an insertion sequence back to the main telling. In this manner, a speaker can effectively steer the direction of the current topic at points where sequential and topical transitions (especially competing trajectories) are negotiated.9 This chapter makes a unique contribution to the study of pivots in German as resources for the organization of information (Franck 1985; Scheutz 2005), as it provides a detailed sequential account for such constructions and the shifts they implement in the local turn and larger activity. In Chapter 5, I shift the analytical focus to the organization of the set of conversational practices designed to deal with problems in speaking, hearing, and understanding: conversational repair (Egbert 2002a; Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1979; Schegloff et al. 1977). Specifically, I focus on one type of speaking problem: trouble in finding a word. In order to investigate the specific function of pivots in this environment, I embed the analysis in existing research on word searches in different languages (e.g., Goodwin & Goodwin 1986; Hayashi 2003b; Kurhila 2006; Rönfeld & Auer 2002). I show that pivot constructions are used at different points in the organization of a word search (during a search, at the end of a search, after a search), and their interactional functions differ with their placement. Moreover, this chapter highlights the correlation between type of pivot and interactional function: For example, pivot constructions used during word searches serve to extend the search process, and they typically exhibit a mirrorimage structure (Franck 1985; see Chapter 2). By contrast, pivot constructions used at the end of a word search may implement a variety of functions, and they also exhibit variance in their structure (see for example (1.1), which will be discussed in Chapter 5 as data sample (5.19) as an example that additionally deals with troubles in reference selection). Chapter 6 takes a closer look at examples of pivot constructions that are structurally complex, specifically those in which the transition from pre-pivot+pivot to pivot+post-pivot involves a substantial structural shift. I will show that these pivots occur in turns in which speakers deal with problems in alignment, affiliation, and recipiency. They enable a speaker to accomplish corrections in the epistemic stance conveyed (e.g., a shift from a weaker stance to more epistemic security) and thereby in the action carried out (e.g., changing an inquiry into a complaint). By using a pivot construction rather than an overt repair operation, speakers are able

.  The latter function appears similar to a practice in Swedish, whereby speakers may use a pivot construction to “skip-connect to previous (pending) communicative projects” after a parenthetical activity (Norén 2007: 319).



Chapter 1.  Introduction

to accomplish this kind of correction below the interactional surface (Jefferson 1987) and thus negotiate interactionally “delicate matters” (Mandelbaum 2005) in an embedded way. Thus, Chapter 6 highlights once more how the choice of a specific type of pivot construction reflects the complexity of the sequence in which it is embedded and of the interactional problems it is designed to address. In uncovering pivot constructions as essentially interactional and co-constructed phenomena, the discussion in this chapter most clearly illustrates the benefit of a usage-based approach to syntax. In the concluding chapter (Chapter 7), I summarize the findings presented in Chapters 3–6. I then outline the contributions this study makes to the existing body of work in “grammar and interaction” (Hakulinen & Selting 2005b; Ochs et al. 1996). This is followed by a discussion of the broader implications of my findings for the study of spoken and written language in general, the study of spoken syntax in specific, and the definition of linguistic units in spoken language. Finally, I sketch out limitations of this study and avenues for future research.



chapter 2

Preliminaries 2.1  Introduction This chapter offers some preliminaries for the data analyses in Chapters 3–6. Section 2.2 provides a description of the data, collection procedures, and participants for the present study and explains the transcription conventions used. Section 2.3 is designed to offer some background for those readers who do not know German, while Section 2.4 outlines the basic structure of the specific phenomenon analyzed in the ensuing chapters. Section 2.3 outlines fundamental word order rules in German. Specifically, I will describe the German sentence brace (Section 2.3.1) and then briefly address the structure of rightward turn expansions as well as verb first constructions in spoken German (2.3.2). I also indicate how pivot constructions may be distinguished from other turn-expanding strategies (Auer 1991, 1992, 1996a, 2006, 2007b; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007; Ford, Fox & Thompson 2002a; Schegloff 2007; Walker 2004a) and also from verb-first constructions. The description of Colloquial German is based on previous work (e.g., Auer 1991, 1993, 1996a, 2005b, 2007a; Schlobinski 1997; Schwitalla 2003), with examples drawn from previous studies and from my collected data. Section 2.4 offers a description of different types of pivot constructions with respect to (a) the overall composition of the construction (2.4.1), (b) the make-up of the “periphery” (Scheutz 2005: 113–114) and the relation between the pre-pivot and post-pivot (Walker 2007) (2.4.2), and (c) the structure and function of the center of the construction (2.4.3). 2.2  Data and transcription conventions The data for this study come from 24 hours of non-elicited telephone and faceto-face conversations in different varieties of German.10 Participants were .  Part of the data collection was made possible by a research grant during the summer of 2005, which was provided by the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

 Pivots in German Conversation

taped during activities in which they would normally engage, such as chats and  arrangement-making on the phone, family festivities, dinners, and game nights. All participants belong to the middle or upper middle class and are native speakers of German. They range in age from 6 to 76 years. The speakers come from different regions in Germany and from a German language island in central Romania, Siebenbürgen/Transylvania.11 Two corpora were assembled, a corpus of Colloquial Standard German (CSG) and a corpus of Siebenbürger Sächsisch (SiebS). The data in the two corpora were analysed separately. As no significant differences in the use of pivot constructions emerged during analysis, the analysis chapters draw on data from both corpora. The data yielded a total of 219 examples of syntactic pivot constructions (170 telephone, 49 face-to-face examples). All speakers of SiebS grew up in different parts of Siebenbürgen and now live in southern Germany or Austria. They are also proficient in CSG. The corpus of SiebS data comprises 7 hours of phone conversations and 3½ hours of face-to-face interactions, including both two-party and multi-party interactions. These data yielded 124 examples of pivot constructions (24 of which were from face-to-face interactions). The speakers of CSG come from a variety of different regions in Germany. The corpus of CSG data used for this study consists of 9 hours of telephone conversations and 4½ hours of face-to-face interactions.12 These data yielded 95 examples of pivot constructions (25 of which occurred in face-to-face interactions). Additional Colloquial German, Austrian German, and English examples included in the corpus stem from existing discourse and conversation analytic research. The data were closely transcribed to include such features as simultaneous talk, audible pauses, and characteristics of speech delivery like pitch and loudness of voice, using the transcription conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (Atkinson & Heritage 1984: ix-xvi; Jefferson 1983b, 1985; Sacks et al. 1974). The conventions based on the Jeffersonian transcription system, along with some additional notation used by the author can be found in Appendix A. For each line of German data, three lines of transcript are provided: the German original, an interlinear English gloss, and an idiomatic English translation (Duranti 1997). Where interlinear gloss and the idiomatic translations are identical, one line

.  The author herself is a native speaker of both Siebenbürger Sächsisch and Colloquial Standard German and thus belongs to the latter group. .  I thank Andrea Golato for making some of these CSG interactions available to me. Tobias Barske provided me with additional data from his corpus of German face-to-face business meeting interactions.



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries

is omitted. Capital letter abbreviations are used for syntactic and semantic features of the talk in the interlinear gloss. These category labels largely follow Leipzig glossing rules (Comrie, Haspelmath & Bickel 2008) and are provided in Appendix B. Where embodied actions (eye-gaze, gesture, posture, physical actions) are included in the transcripts, they appear as narrative descriptions above the utterance. In all transcripts, the lines containing the target phenomenon are marked with an arrow (→) and the target phenomenon is highlighted visually by using a grey background.

2.3  The syntax of spoken German 2.3.1  Basic word order rules and the German Satzklammer/“sentence brace” 2.3.1.1  Basic word order rules Typologically, German is generally described as a mixed SVO/verb-second (V2) and SOV/verb-final language. SVO (subject-verb-object) order typically applies to declarative main clauses and wh-questions, while subordinate clauses exhibit SOV (subject-object-verb) order. Examples (2.1) and (2.2), taken from my data, illustrate SVO word order in a declarative main clause in German (in different varieties of German): (2.1)

SVOˉinˉdeclaratives



a.

CSG:

E:



b. SiebS:

T:ˉ

ˉ





tim robbinsˉ[EH_Filme_L82] .hh ich fand den nich so prall .hh I found that not so great [ S ] [ V ] [ O ] .hhˉIˉdidn’tˉfindˉthatˉsoˉgreat

keˉbambergˉ[O_04-B_86] se w↑i:aselse endjen they m↑ove+them always [ S ] [ V ]+[ O ] theyˉalwaysˉm↑oveˉthemˉ(around)

Unlike English, German displays verb second ordering regardless of the type of constituent that occupies the first position. In examples (2.2a) and (2.2c) below, the first position in the clause is occupied by an object and is followed by the verb. In examples (2.2b) and (2.2d), the clause-initial position is occupied by obliques, i.e., elements other than the subject, direct object, and indirect object, which in (b) is an adverbial phrase (ADVP) and in (d) an adverbial + a prepositional phrase (PP). In all examples, the subject thus appears in post-verbal position.



 Pivots in German Conversation (2.2)

verbˉsecondˉordering

a. CSG:

turniereˉ[Ingo1B_280]ˉ((theˉtopicˉisˉtennis))

X:ˉ

doppel find ich so lankweilig. doubles find I so boring. [ O ] [ V ] [ S ] doublesˉIˉfindˉsoˉboring.







b. CSG:

turniereˉ[Ingo1B_280]

M:ˉ

NÄCHSTES WOCHENende gehnwer aufen turnier. NEXT WEEKend go+we to+a tournament. [ ADVP ] [ V  ] [ S  ] NEXTˉWEEKendˉwe’reˉgoingˉtoˉaˉtournament.

c.

germanistikˉ[Oˉ05-B_496]



SiebS:

K:ˉ

.hh dieses briecht det INA nichen. .hh this kind needs the ((name)) not. [ O ] [ V ] [ S ] .hhˉthisˉkindˉINAˉdoesn’tˉneed.

d. SiebS: straßenbahnlinieˉ[O_03-B_214]ˉ ((Lˉisˉexplainingˉaˉstreetcarˉroute)) L:

ha bam shell dreit se sich, here at+the ((name)) turns it refl, [adv + PP ] [ V ] [ S ] hereˉatˉshellˉitˉturns,

The instances in (2.3) below exemplify SOV ordering in subordinate clauses in different varieties of German. In example (2.3a), the verb phrase consists of a finite main verb, while in examples (b) and (c) the verb phrases are composite form (past participle and finite auxiliary). In subordinate clauses, sentence objects and obliques occur after the subject, but before the verb phrase. As a result of this ordering, the verb and subject can be quite far apart and the informational verb unit can be withheld for long stretches of talk. Thus, although German word order is relatively flexible, there are certain clearly defined and syntactically driven word order rules. Based on these word order rules, speakers project points of syntactic completion and recipients can both predict and recognize them. This projection of final elements is a central feature of German (Auer 2007a). (2.3)

SOV/verb-finalˉorderingˉinˉsubordinateˉclauses

a.

SiebS: flugˉnachˉamerikaˉ[M_05-B_217]

G:ˉ over .h wunte si far fuif sias menet fuarhiar buchst but .h if+you like four five six months before book [S] [ V ] but .hˉifˉyouˉbookˉaboutˉfourˉfiveˉsixˉmonthsˉahead



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

b. CSG: merengeˉ[30_Ingo1B_264] X:ˉ weil er diplomarbeit geschrieben hat. because he master’s thesis written has. [S] [ O ] [ V ] becauseˉheˉwasˉwritingˉhisˉthesis.13

c.

SiebS: germanistikˉ[Oˉ05-B_496]

T:ˉ amwote chia nau nuer ienster ke bamberg hot geda:vert.14 because+he prt prt only now to ((name)) has mo:ved. [S] [ V ] because he only just recently mo:ved to bambergˉ(as you know).

Thus, while in declarative main clauses with simple verbs the end of a sentence is not always clearly predictable, dependent (subordinate) clauses exhibit strict verb-final ordering. Once the subordinating conjunction (weil/“because” in (2.3b), wun/“if ” in (2.3a), amwot/“because” in (2.3c)) is uttered, the verb and its placements as final element of the clause are strongly projected.15 This rule provides a powerful resource for speakers, because it allows extensive expansion of a turn before the verb is uttered while maintaining the incompleteness of the structure, and also for recipients, because it allows them to project exactly what it will take for the turn in progress to be complete. 2.3.1.2  The German Satzklammer/“sentence brace” Data example (2.1) only displayed the placement of simple verb phrases in main clauses. Composite verb forms (e.g., hat geschrieben/“has written”, muss gehen/“has to go”) are ordered according to a syntactic rule called Satzklammer

.  In spoken German, the perfect is the “unmarked” past tense form (Schwitalla 2003: 135). That is, preference is given to the (composite) present perfect over the (simple) preterit (Eisenberg 1989:  572; Hennig 2000; Schwitalla 2003:  135–137) (certain verbs are exceptions to this practice; see for example (2.1a)). Since the present perfect in English is used differently, I translate the German present perfect in most cases as simple past in the idiomatic English gloss. .  Note that the order of the elements in a composite verb phrase in sentence-final position may vary between varieties of German. This difference between varieties did not emerge as relevant for the phenomenon described in this study and will not be discussed here. .  But see Schwitalla (2003: 144–146) for an overview of the systematic use of some subordinating conjunctions with verb-second ordering in spoken German, notably weil/“because” (Scheutz 2001; Selting 1999; Uhmann 1996), obwohl/“even though/although” (Günthner 1999a), and wobei/“even though/although” (Auer 1997; Günthner 2000a).

 Pivots in German Conversation

(“sentence brace”) in main clause declaratives and wh-questions.16 Table 2.1 provides examples of sentence brace structures, with the highlighted parts forming the brace itself. In sentence brace structures, the finite verb in second position represents the left brace, followed by the so-called Mittelfeld (“inner field”). The sentence brace organizes the ordering of elements for different types of complex verb phrases. Hence, the right brace, which constitutes the right boundary of the inner field, may be filled by elements such as infinitives (Table 2.1, example (a)), past participles (ex. (b)), predicate complements (ex. (c)), separable verb prefixes (ex. (d)), or combinations of these (ex. (b)).17 Table 2.1. also provides an example of word ordering in a wh-question (example (c)). The sentence brace also applies to verb-first clauses such as yes/nointerrogatives (cf. Table 2.1 (e)). The verb placement in verb-final clauses can also be said to constitute a sentence brace (Table 2.1 (f ); see also examples in (2.3)). Here, the front-field remains empty,18 the finite verb or subordinating conjunction constitutes the left brace, and the infinitive verb form (inf) or a verbal complex (finite and non-finite elements) constitutes the right brace (Auer 1996a; Eisenberg 1989: 408–417). These constraints on the ordering of verbal elements in German clauses and the fact that syntactic closure in different types of clauses is tied to the production of the right-brace element(s) generally allow for very specific prediction of the overall syntactic shape of the sentence-in-progress. This includes the prediction of what type of clause is underway as well as the recognition of elements that constitute a possible completion. In monitoring the unfolding structure of a speaker’s turn, recipients use these resources to locate possible transition spaces, that is, “legitimate” places for a next speaker to begin to speak. The right brace in a syntactic structure (clause/sentence) used in spoken interaction usually constitutes the actual end of that structure and is oriented to as such by recipients. Consider segments (2.4) – (2.6) (sentence brace highlighted), in which speakers show their orientation to the right brace as the

.  English translations of the grammatical terms adopted from Auer (1996a: 62). .  The end-field as a grammaticalized position may be filled with, e.g., a subordinate clause or some types of rightward sentence expansions (Auer 1991). Note that in compound sentences, such as Table 2.1 (a) and (b) (the second sentence respectively), the end-field is projected. In (a), this is an indirect question, in (b) it is a quote. .  It could be filled with, for example, a coordinating conjunction (Eisenberg 1989).



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

Table 2.1  The Satzklammer/“sentence brace” in German sentences front-field Vorfeld

leftbrace linke Satzklammer

inner-field Mittelfeld

[finiteVERB] [subord.conj.]

(a) die they

wollten wanted

rightbrace rechte Satzklammer

end-field Nachfeld

[INF/PPT/PRE] [verbalcomplex]

erst mal gAr nichts mehr for now INT nothing else

hören hear

they didn’t want to hear anything any more ich I

mies et nau iester must +her PRT once

frä↓jen ↓ask

... ...

I have to ↓ask her now ... (b) ich I

hab s have +it

versucht. tried.

I tried. tä then

hun ich k(h)ent helga have +I t(h)o ((name))

gesät said

... ...

then/so I said t(h)o helga ... dot that

wird will

chia nau schin deirer PRT PRT already more expensive

sie gewarden have become

that will probably have become more expensive already (c) wann when

is is

denn euer haus mal PRT your house PRT

fertich. done.

when is your house(going to be)done(at last). (d) da there

geh go

icheigentlichgarnichmehr I actually INT not anymore

rein. in.

I actually don’t go in there at all any more. mä meum my husband

geit goes

drä en desmarjest uch then in the morning also

Äkeife, SHOpping,

my husband then goes SHOpping in the morning as well, (e)

ø

(f)

ø

wolln want

wir jetzt mit den luftballons we now with the balloons

sp↑ielen? pl↑ay?

can we play with the balloons now? weil because

er diplomarbeit he master’s thesis

geschrieben hat. written has.

because he was writing his thesis.

projected end of the speaker’s TCU. They do so by starting their turn in the transition space19 or by showing that they are preparing to start speaking. A second speaker starts up, precisely timed, after the infinitive anrufen in segment (2.4) and

.  A transition space opens up when the end of a current speaker’s turn is clearly projectable, that is, before its actual end (Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 2000).

 Pivots in German Conversation

in overlap with the past participle geimfer:t in segment (2.5). In (2.6), the speaker prepares to speak before the last element of the turn, as evidenced by the nonlexical utterance pt(h) and the inbreath (both in line 3). (2.4) F11Aˉ(takenˉfromˉAuerˉ(1991: 146),ˉmyˉtranslation),ˉsimplifiedˉ(seeˉ(2.7)) 1 T:ˉ kanns ja heut ábend nochmal anrufen can-2psg prt toníght again call (you)ˉcanˉcallˉagainˉtoníght 2 M:ˉ ja mách ich maus; yes make I mouse; yesˉI’llˉdoˉthatˉ(my)ˉmouse;

(2.5)

helgaˉinˉungarnˉ2ˉ[O_04-A_179]

1 M:ˉ t.hh thot niemest geimfe[r:t ] t.hh there+has nobody answ[ered] t.hh nobody answ[ered] [ ] 2 G:ˉ [ äh]ä=ähä. [ uh]huh=uhˉhuh.

(2.6) anrufbeantworterˉ[E_01_B_279],ˉsimplifiedˉ(seeˉsegmentˉ(2.8)) 1 BI: =also ich b- will nicht sagen dass ichs- (.) =so I b- want not say that I+it- (.) =soˉIˉb-ˉdon’tˉmeanˉtoˉsayˉthatˉIˉit-ˉ(.) 2

euch erreiche[n wollt_ you-pl rea[chˉwanted_ wantedˉtoˉ rea[chˉyou_ [ 3 E:ˉ [pt(h)ˉ.hh [pt(h)ˉ.hh

In the analysis of pivot constructions in Chapters 3–6, I show how speakers can exploit the strength of final projection by performing a shift in structure before a projected right brace is produced. 2.3.2  Rightward turn expansions and verb-first constructions in German 2.3.2.1  Rightward turn expansions Even though the production of the right brace is commonly oriented to as the end of a speaker’s TCU (and turn), speakers may expand a turn beyond the right brace. This expansion can consist of elements that can be integrated into the preceding syntactic structure but are “misplaced” in terms of word order, elements that modify and/or replace a prior element, and elements that modify or add to a prior



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

utterance yet remain syntactically independent (Auer 1991, 1992). Expansions also exhibit different degrees of prosodic integration (Auer 1991, 1996a, 2006, 2007b; Selting 1994).20 In instances 2.7 and 2.8, the speaker continues the turn beyond the point of possible completion (highlighted). This practice is also oriented to as an expansion by the co-participant and results in overlap. (2.7) F11Aˉ(takenˉfromˉAuerˉ(1991: 146),ˉmyˉtranslation) 1 T: kanns ja heut ábend nochmal anrufen [zu hause can-2psg prt toníght again call [at home (you)ˉcanˉcallˉagainˉtoníghtˉ [atˉhome [ 2 M:ˉ [ja mách ich maus; [yes make I mouse;  [yesˉI’llˉdoˉthat  (my)ˉmouse;

(2.8) anrufbeantworterˉ[E_01_B_279] 1 BI: =also ich b- will nicht sagen dass ichs- (.) =so+I b- want not say that I+it- (.) =soˉIˉb-ˉdon’tˉmeanˉtoˉsayˉthatˉIˉit-ˉ(.) 2 euchˉerreiche[n wollt_ un]bedingt.= you-pl rea[ch wanted_ ne]cessarily.= wanted to rea[ch you_ ne]cessarily.= [ ] 3 E:ˉ [pt(h) .hh] [pt(h) .hh]

Expansions can be the result of a lack of uptake by the co-participant (Auer 1991: 153; Schwitalla 2003: 115–116; see also Davidson 1984; Ford et al. 2002a; Schegloff 1996b), as the next example illustrates. Markus’s (M) announcement of his plans for a theater visit is syntactically (and also pragmatically and prosodically)

.  For research on turn continuations in other languages, see Ford (2002a), Schegloff (1996b, 2000, 2007), and Walker (2004a, 2004b) on increments in English and Ono (1994) on “unattached NPs” in English, Seppänen and Laury (2007) on complement clauses in Finnish, Kim, K.-h. (2007) on post-predicate elements in Korean, Luke and Zhang (2007) on turn continuations in Mandarin Chinese, and Field (2007) on increments in Navajo. For a crosslinguistic view, see Couper-Kuhlen and Ono (2007) and Vorreiter (2003) on increments in German, English, and Japanese and the introduction to the Pragmatics special issue on “Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective” by Ono and Couper-Kuhlen (2007). See also the introduction to Chapter 3 for a discussion of different prosodic resources speakers can employ to extend a turn.

 Pivots in German Conversation

complete after the verb complement theater. A filled gap occurs in line 2 (Markus’s inbreath), in which Paula could respond to this announcement. When no uptake occurs, Markus expands his turn with the PP zum (shakespearefestival). (2.9)

shakespeare [115_Oregon1A_205]

1 M:ˉ(n)ja ja;
ins theater. .hhhh z[um- ] to+the theater. .hhhh t[o+the-] toˉthe theater. .hhhh t[oˉthe-] ˉ[ ] 3 P:ˉ [was ] gibts enn, [what ] gives+it prt, [what ]’sˉplaying, 4 M: .h ä:: h ä-ä- zum shakespeare festival .h u:: h uh-uh- to+the shakespeare festival .h u:: h uh-uh- toˉthe shakespeare festival

Turn expansions can function as pivot elements. In such constructions, a speaker adds elements to a possibly complete turn, thereby expanding that turn. After such an expansion, the speaker produces further talk, prompting a reanalysis of the expansion as a first element in a new construction. The basis for the reanalysis, then, are word order rules of German, specifically the verb-second rule in declaratives. Consider the following example (a continuation of segment (2.9); discussed in depth in Chapter 4 as example (4.5)), in which zum shakespearefestival constitutes a shared element between two syntactic structures. It serves as a rightward expansion to the first and as the front-field constituent to the second: 21 (2.10)

shakespeareˉ[115_Oregon1A_205]



1 M:ˉ (n)ja ja;
ˉ→ 2



ins theater. .hhhh z[um- ] to+the theater. .hhhh t[o+the-] toˉthe theater. .hhhh t[oˉthe-] [ ]

.  For another example of expansions serving as pivot elements, see segment (6.5) helga in ungarn 2. In this example, a complement clause serves as the pivot element.



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

3 P:ˉ

[was ] gibts enn, [what ] gives+it prt, [what ]’s playing,

ˉ→ 4 M:ˉ .h ä:: h ä-ä- zum shakespearefestival fahrich .hˉu::ˉh uh-uh- to+the shakespeare festival driveˉI .hˉu::ˉh uh-uh- to+the shakespeare festival I’m driving

2.3.2.2  Verb-first constructions Another feature of spoken German grammar is the verb-first construction. In written standard German, verb-first ordering is limited to yes/no-questions, imperatives, and certain types of exclamations (cf. Auer 1993: 194). Declaratives require that an element precede the verb, even if this element is only a “place holder” (i.e., an syntactic expletive such as et/ “es”/“it”, as in et rent/“es regnet”/“it’s raining” in Siebenbürger Sächsisch). Spoken German, however, allows empty first positions in declaratives. Consider the following data excerpts: (2.11) bessaˉ[046_Ingo2A] ((Xaverˉhasˉjustˉbeenˉaskedˉaboutˉtheˉwell-being of a common acquaintance.)) X: raffael is fit dra:uf. (.) sieht gu:t a::us ((name)) is in goodˉshape. (.) looks good raffael is in good shape. (.) is looking good

(2.12) weineˉ[FS1.32.09]ˉ(face-to-face)  ((BernhardˉgivesˉaˉpossibleˉreasonˉforˉtheˉpopularityˉofˉGermanˉMoselˉwines ˉinˉtheˉtheˉUS.))

1 B:ˉ des is eben son leichter wein. der mosel is ja that is prt such+a light wine. the ((name)) is prt that is prt aˉkindˉof light wine. the mosel is prt



2







viel leichter als der rheingauer oder der rheinhessen much lighter than the ((name)) or the ((name)) much lighter than the rheingauer or rheinhessen

3 B:ˉ .hhhh ((sitsˉdown))

ˉ→ 4 B:ˉ is en leichter WEIn, is a light WINe,-

Auer (1993) shows that verb first clauses occur in the following types of conversational actions and sequential positions: (1) modalizations (where verb-first expressions of stance follow the utterance to which they refer, e.g., hoff ich/“I hope”), assessments and comments (both in first and second position, cf. segment (2.11), see also Golato 2005), (2) elaborations and reformulations (cf. segment (2.12), where the V1 construction may also be implicated in managing gaps; Auer 1993: 210), and (3) responses to conversational (yes/no-type) questions. In these environments, V1 constructions

 Pivots in German Conversation

are responsive or “backward-oriented”, and their main function lies in establishing textual coherence. Their interpretation is dependent on the preceding utterance and they are not used to initiate sequential shifts. For Swedish, typologically a V2 language (with V1 order grammaticalized for yes/no-questions), Lindström (2006) similarly observes that verb-first declaratives, while systematically used by speakers, are “typically parasitic and responsive to the current sequence or discourse.” In other words, they are “recognizably subsequent to some prior turn or TCU” and thus “a practice of beginning an utterance with a nonbeginning” (Lindström 2006: 96; cf. Lindström & Karlsson 2005; Mörnsjö 2002; Schegloff 1996b: 76). Verb first constructions as described by Auer (1993) are used as a systematic resource in narrative contexts. They can be employed to mark the transition into a narration and, within an extended telling, can be used to highlight or stress a specific step or subsequent steps in the development of the telling. They may thus serve to “dramatize” the telling (Günthner 2000a: 240). Consider the following fragment: (2.13) (dataˉtakenˉfromˉSelting,ˉquotedˉinˉAuerˉ(1993: 214);ˉtranslationˉmine): 1 D:ˉ also méin: Hausarzt hat sofórt gemerkt dass ich prt my: physician has immediately noticed that I so my: physician immediately noticed that I 2

rauche; – der hat mich ábgehört und hat gesacht smoke; – he has me examined and has said smoke; – he examined me and said do you

→ 3

ráuchen sie? meint ich jáa, meint er já; hö’rt man. smoke you? say I yeaa, says he yes; hears one. smoke? I say yeaa, he says yes; you (can) hear that.

The use of V1 constructions is markedly different in narratives. V1 constructions in other sequential contexts tend to be a backward-oriented tool that serves to establish cohesion and to facilitate recipient design. In narratives, they move the sequence/action forward and, moreover, help shape the specific (rhythmic, dramatic) narrative character of an extended telling. A pivot construction (particularly one with a syntactically complete prepivot+pivot) may at first pass look like two separate structures; a syntactically complete pre-pivot+pivot structure and a verb-first post-pivot structure. Consider the following example: (2.14) germanistikˉ[Oˉ05-B_496] M:ˉ ich gänau ban ↓dokter mies ich nau >gä chia.< I go+now to+the ↓doctor must I now go yes. I'm going to the ↓doctor is where I have to >go now yes.<

Maja’s turn is syntactically possibly complete after ban dokter and followed by mies, which could be the beginning of a V1 construction. There are, however, several



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

significant differences between pivot constructions and V1 clauses, and these are exemplified in fragment (2.14): First, the structure preceding the verb in question is not marked as prosodically complete in pivot constructions. With few exceptions (usually when the pivot element is a turn expansion, see (2.10)), there is no prosodic break (pause, terminal intonation) at the point where a V1 construction could start. Thus, the verb is marked prosodically as a continuation. Moreover, it is usually uttered with a normal beat of silence after the preceding element or even latched onto it. Second, an upstep or down step in pitch, in combination with syntactic cues, often marks a prosodic break, and thus, for example, the beginning of a new structure (Auer 1996a; Selting 2001; Walker 2004b). While such changes in pitch are observable in V1 constructions, pivot structures rarely exhibit stress or pitch changes on the verb following the pivot element. Rather, the primary or second accent focus in a pivot construction is usually located immediately prior: on the pivot element itself (cf. Scheutz 2005: 105; see also Norén 2007: 150, for similar observations for Swedish). Lastly, Auer (1993: 218) notes that V1 clauses are much more common in spoken German than in written German because of the following features of spoken German: The expletive pronouns es/“it” and das/“that” (i.e., when not used anaphorically or as deictic pronouns) are not mandatory. The finite verb may then introduce a sentence directly. It is thus generally relatively vague, empty, or easily inferable elements that could fill the front-field position in the structures realized as V1. For constructions in which more substantial or obligatory elements are not realized, Fries (1988), cited in Auer (1993:  199), notes that there are restrictions with respect to what may be inferably “omitted” in V1 constructions. While deictic 1psg or 2psg pronouns may be omitted, genitive and dative pronouns are rarely omitted. Similarly, temporal references may be omitted, but local and causal complements are almost never “missing.” Pivot elements, however, are most commonly pps of place. Structures such as the following (structurally possible V1 highlighted) would thus not be typical examples of V1 constructions. (2.15)

floridaˉ[OregonT1A_025];ˉtimeˉexpressionˉinˉfront-field22

1 M:ˉ geregnet hat. .hh und das is jetz so trocken in teilen rained has. .hh and itdem is now so dry in parts long already. .hh and that’s so dry now in parts

.  There is no clear prosodic break between trocken and in teilen von von florida that would suggest that a second sentence starts after trocken. This is thus an example of an expansion used as a pivot element; see Section 2.2.

 Pivots in German Conversation ˉ2

von: von florida is es so trocken wie in der wüste. .hh of:ˉ of florida is it so dry as in the desert. .hh of:ˉ of florida it’sˉ as dry as in the desert. .hh

(2.16) bessaˉ[046_Ingo2A],ˉsimplifiedˉ(seeˉex.ˉ(3.5));ˉdativeˉobjectˉinˉfront-field

M:ˉ so.wie gehts

denn (dem)

so.how goes+it prt

raffa>el gehts

(for+the) ((name))

wieda bessa.=ne,

goes+it again better.=prt,

so.how’sˉraffa>elˉisˉbetterˉagainˉright,

Hence, in addition to prosodic features, common features of V1 structures also inform the analysis of examples 2.15 and 2.16 as pivot structures, that is, one coherent unit rather than two.

2.4  A typology of syntactic pivot constructions This section offers a structural description of syntactic pivot construction in spoken German. It should be noted that the formal description of the corpus and its functional description were done seperately; that is, formal categories did not serve as a basis for the qualitative analyses presented in Chapters 3–6. However, during the qualitative analysis, some connections between form and function types emerged, and these will be sketched in the analysis Chapters and further discussed in Chapter 7. Pivot constructions can take different shapes with respect to the overall composition of the construction (Section 2.4.1), the make-up of the periphery and the relation between the pre-pivot and post-pivot (Section 2.4.2), and the structure and syntactic fit of the center of the construction (2.4.3). 2.4.1  The pivot construction: Overall composition 2.4.1.1  Syntactic structure of the pivot construction All syntactic pivot constructions have three parts: the pre-pivot element, the central pivot element and the post-pivot element. The three parts are connected by different level constituency relations (Auer 2005b), generally adjacently placed, and clearly definable.23 While both the pre-pivot+pivot structure and the pivot+post-pivot

.  The two attributes are qualified here, because firstly, there is a small number of constructions classified as pivot constructions in which the pivot and pre- or post-pivot structures are separated by intervening talk (see (2.10)/(4.5) shakespeare). Secondly, there are cases in which an element cannot be clearly assigned to one of the three parts of a pivot construction (see (2.22) rosi).



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

structure are possible according to the word order rules of spoken German, the whole pre-pivot+pivot+post-pivot structure is not. While, from a traditional syntactic perspective, the whole construction is not coherent, it is typically produced as one prosodic unit. Figure 2.1, a visualization of segment (2.17), illustrates the gestalt of this construction: (2.17) Dialekteˉ2ˉ[Champaign_Clark_A2]ˉ(face-to-face)24 ˉ T:ˉ und des war an dem t(h)ag hats so geschneit;=wirklich and that was on that d(h)ay has+it so snowed;=really and that was on that d(h)ay it snowed so heavily;=really

(pivot+post-pivot) SENTENCE 2 front-field und and

des war an dem t(h)ag that was on that d(h)ay prefront- fin. front field field Verb inner-field

left brace

inner field

right brace

hat+s has+it

so so(heavily)

geschneit; snowed;

SENTENCE 1 (pre-pivot+pivot)

Figure 2.1  Position of the pivot element in the German sentence structure (dialekte 2).

The basic factors for structurally identifying a syntactic pivot construction are syntax (specifically word order) and prosody. However, as will become clear in the subsequent chapters, semantics and pragmatics are essential in classifying an utterance as a pivot construction in a specific communicative context (see segment (3.7) weine for an illustration of the importance of semantics in allowing or blocking the analysis of an utterance as a pivot). The overwhelming majority of pivot constructions in my collection serves to connect clauses. In (2.17), the pivot element connects two simple declaratives. The accusative object EINEN wein/ “a (type of) wine” in (2.18) connects a simple declarative main clause (un dann ham se EINEN wein) and a complex clause (EINEN wein den es überall gibt=das is liebfrauenmilch). In (2.19), the pivot connects a dependent clause and a main clause, thus facilitating a shift in syntactic level. Throughout the remaining chapter, the pivot construction and the central pivot element will be highlighted in the transcripts.

.  A brief clarification of why this structure is classified as a pivot construction: The main clause und des war an dem Tag could be followed by further middle field elements (a PP that further specifies the time) or a dependent relative clause specifying the noun Tag, as for example

 Pivots in German Conversation

(2.18) weineˉ[FS1.32.09]ˉ(face-to-face),ˉsimplifiedˉ(seeˉsegmentˉ(3.7)) 1 A: [un dann ham se EI]NEN wein den es überall [and then have they A]-acc wine that is25 everywhere [and then they have a]wine that is everywhere

gibt=das is lieb〈frauenm↓ilch〉26 that is ((name)) that is lieb〈frauenm↓ilch〉

2



(2.19) semesterbeitragˉ[70_Ingo2B_350],ˉsimplifiedˉ(seeˉsegmentˉ(4.13)) 1 I:ˉ und (.) dENkste daran dass ähm:(0.1) dass ich and (.) thINK+you of+it that uhm:(0.1) that I andˉ(.)ˉwillˉyouˉpleaseˉrememberˉthatˉuhm:ˉ(0.1)ˉthat 2



am 〈fünfzehnten〉 (.) ju:ni:=hh bin ich hier weg. on+the 〈fifteenth〉 (.) ju:ne=hh am I here gone. I(‘llˉbeˉgone)27ˉonˉtheˉ〈fifteenth〉ˉ(.)ˉofˉju:ne=hh I’llˉbeˉgone.

Pivot constructions may also operate on the phrasal level. In (2.20), the pivot element connects two complex adverbial phrases, schin zwe mE:net and zwe mE:net filecht schin. (2.20) ke bambergˉ[O_04-B_86],ˉsimplified 1 T:ˉ ˉ...

ias ja ia bamberg; is prt in ((name)); (he) is (asˉyouˉknow)ˉinˉbamberg;

in “und des war an dem Tag, den ich nie vergessen werde”/“ ... , which I will never forget”. Since in relative clauses in German (unlike in English), the relative pronoun cannot be dropped, the verb hat cannot constitute a continuation of the structure in progress. Hence, und des war an dem Tag hats so geschneit cannot be interpreted as a single sentential TCU with a relative clause after an dem tag. .  “es gibt” + acc = “there is”/“there are”. .  This construction is a pivot construction rather than a main clause followed by a relative clause (i.e., “And then they have (=own) a wine that is (available) everywhere”) for the following reason: Annette (A) is not referring to a previously mentioned third party with se/“they”, but rather uses se as an impersonal pronoun to state general facts. In this case, the topic of discussion is the selection of German wines available to the American consumer. Ham se/“they have” then refers to “what Americans have in their stores”, and means “there is” (in American stores). Hence, ham se and es ... gibt in this example are both impersonal verbal constructions and are similar, if not identical, in meaning. This example is discussed in depth in Chapter 3 as segment (3.7). .  Elements in parentheses are not in original transcript. They were added in an attempt to convey the “flavor” of the original structure. In the original German, the prepositional phrase am fünfzehnten juni would precede the verb, because this is a subordinate clause. That is, the normal word order would be “that I on the fifteenth of june gone am.” In English, however, the verb has to precede the PP, which makes it difficult to convey the emergence of the pivot structure in the idiomatic translation.



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

ˉ→ 3 T: ˉ schin (0.6) zwe mE:net filecht schi= (for)ˉalready (0.6) two mo:nths maybe already= alreadyˉ(0.6)ˉtwoˉmonthsˉmaybeˉalready=

In all the examples above, the pivot element is a continuation based on syntactic and pragmatic projections established by the beginning of the structure underway: In segment (2.20), zwe mE:net occurs in a slot where an expression of time was projected (indeed, searched-for). In (2.18), the accusative noun phrase (NP) EINEN wein is uttered within the larger topic of discussing types of wines and at a point at which an object was due. The prepositional phrase an dem t(h)ag in (2.17) occurs after the subject and second-position verb in the middle field of the sentence and is therefore a continuation (and possible completion) of the construction in progress. While the second part of a pivot construction is typically complete (a complete sentence, clause, or phrase), the first part, the pre-pivot+pivot structure is either complete (cf. example (2.18) or remains syntactically incomplete (as in (2.19)). In pivot constructions in which the pre-pivot+pivot structure is syntactically incomplete, the sentence typically exhibits a sentence brace as shown in Table 2.1. It is the right brace element that would be necessary to complete the structure but is never produced. Consider Figures 2.2 and 2.3, in which the past participle (ppt) and the infinitive, respectively, are not produced. The pivot element is circled. 1

E:

.hh da sien nau dä, da sien um um siangduch .hh they are now there, they have on on sunday .hh they are there now,

2

〈sien 〈have

they have ((verb)) on on sunday

da nau k↑un,〉 they PRT c↑ome,〉

left brace 〈have they(actually) arrived,〉 of 2nd construction

right brace left brace

Figure 2.2  Syntactic completion in a pivot construction, ex. 1 (vancouver). 1

L:

ich glaub da muss man noch en bisschen I think PRT must one still a little I think one has to ((verb)) a little more

2

zum strEIchel- für STREIcheleinheiten for CArefor LOving care for CAre- for LOving care one has to

3

da

muss man must one

noch

en paar mal hinfahren. few more times drive there. drive there a few more times.

PRT still a

Figure 2.3  Syntactic completion in a pivot construction, ex. 2 (streicheleinheiten).

 Pivots in German Conversation

Thus, it seems that in these types of constructions, interactants make use of the projective force of the left brace element in the sentence brace. This left brace element is a finite verb – an auxiliary or modal verb, as in Figure 2.2, or a verb which requires a prefix or predicate complement (see Table 2.1) – or a subordinate conjunction, as in example (2.19). The left-brace element strongly projects a second verbal part to occur the end of the sentence or clause, and co-participants monitor for the occurrence of the right brace element as a syntactic completion point. The shift from one construction to the next in a pivot occurs before the right brace element is uttered, using an item from the syntactic inner-field position as the pivot element. Because this pivot element is used both as a continuation of the original and a first element of a new construction, the co-participant can only identify the shift in retrospect. Hence, while a co-participant is still “expecting” the originally projected right brace element, a speaker changes the type of structure in progress. The speaker thereby not only extends the turn in progress in an unprojected way, but effectively eliminates a point of possible speaker transition. In sum, we can broadly distinguish two types of pivot constructions with respect to the overall syntactic design: (1) Constructions with a syntactically complete pre-pivot+pivot component (2) Constructions with a syntactically incomplete pre-pivot+pivot component In both types, however, it is not only syntax, but a combination of syntactic and prosodic features which characterize a pivot construction and enable us to distinguish them from other types of practices in interaction, notably cut-offs and restarts. 2.4.1.2  Prosodic gestalt of the pivot construction Between the pre-pivot and the pivot element and between the pivot and the post-pivot element, there is typically no prosodic boundary. Prosodic boundaries could be either (1) pauses, cut-offs,28 or slowing down at the end of the pivot element, which could mark an upcoming actual completion, or (2) an upstep or down step in pitch (Selting 2001). Thus, prosodic cues that indicate the beginning of a new structure or the abandonment of the previous structure are typically absent in pivot constructions (cf. the discussion of V1 constructions in Section 2.3.2). Prosody seems to be especially important in classifying .  In Figure 2.3, the cut-off on zum streichel- is the result of overlap on this PP (not marked in (2.3), but see segment (4.10)). Note also that cut-offs and pauses may be used within the pivot element, for example when the speaker is pursuing a word search (see Chapter 5).



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

a structure in which the pre-pivot+pivot could be syntactically complete as a pivot construction. Speakers withhold prosodic markers for completion or new starts in order to “bring off ” the post-pivot elements as a continuation and the whole pivot structure as one unit (cf. Norén 2007; Walker 2007). We can thus say that pivot constructions typically exhibit one intact intonational contour (Scheutz 2005; Selting 2001). Structures that are not produced under one intonational contour, may – although they are not prototypical – still constitute examples of pivot constructions. Such instances include micro pauses or cut-offs within the constituent parts of the pivot construction (cf. Chapter 5), and pauses or intervening talk between pivot and pre- or post-pivot. Constructions in which a right-expansion (cf. segments (2.7)–(2.10) above) serves as the pivot element may illustrate the latter: Turn expansions may or may not be prosodically exposed and, therefore, the boundary between the pre-pivot and the pivot may be prosodically marked. However, both marked and unmarked turn expansions are produced by speakers as continuations and can be understood by recipients as such (see, e.g., Ford et al. 2002a; Lerner 2004a; Walker 2004a, 2004b). Thus, a change in the status of an element from turn expansion (i.e., continuation) to front-field element (i.e., new beginning) only emerges as the talk continues. I therefore include such structures in my collection if syntax and semantics allow such an analysis. 2.4.2  The periphery: Three types of constructions With respect to the periphery of the pivot structure (pre-pivot, post-pivot), I distinguish three types of constructions,29 as illustrated below. (1) Mirror-image constructions (2) Modified mirror-image constructions (3) Modified constructions. These exhibit the most substantial structural shifts from the pre-pivot+pivot to the pivot+post-pivot structure. 2.4.2.1  Mirror-image constructions Segments (2.21) and (2.22) exemplify mirror-image-type structures, in which the pre-pivot and post-pivot “display a completely symmetric structure around

.  For different typologies, see Franck (1985) and Scheutz (2005) for German, Norén (2007) for Swedish. The terms used for the different types are adapted from Franck (1985) and Scheutz (1992, 2005)

 Pivots in German Conversation

the pivot element” (Scheutz 2005: 107). (2.21) constitutes an example of a pivot construction with a complete pre-pivot+pivot, (2.22) of a structure of a type with an incomplete pre-pivot+pivot. Here, a verbal complement is projected by the pre-pivot verb but not produced until the end of the post-pivot structure (ände kirch/“to church”). (2.21) deˉmaunenˉ[Oˉ03-A,ˉ161] 1 M:ˉ hia f-(b)racht mich trä him. he dr-(b)ringssbjv1 me then home. he’d dr-(t)ake me home then. 2

>sä ich< lä:s mich zefriden >sä ich< echˉfor >said I< lea:ve me inˉpeace >said I< Iˉdrive-sbjv1 | pre-ˉ | pivot |ˉ post- | >Iˉsaid<ˉlea:veˉmeˉaloneˉ>Iˉsaid<ˉI’mˉgoing

3

nau miat diese maunen ha:esi. now with these aunts here. now with these aunts (oldˉladies)ˉhe:re.

(2.22) OR3ˉrosi,ˉ[O_03_B_344],ˉsimplified30 L:ˉ et kI:d=over en jÄde suandje kidedände KIrch. she cO:mes=though on Every sunday comes+she+to+the CHUrch. | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | butˉsheˉgO:es everyˉsunday sheˉgoesˉtoˉCHUrch.

.  In this example, the word aber/over/“but/though” could be part of either the pre-pivot structure or the pivot element itself. This is possible because aber can be:

1. an adverb (“though”) and thus be positioned in the inner field of a German clause. As an adverb, aber would be part of the pre-pivot+pivot structure. 2. a coordinating conjunction (“but”) and thus be positioned in the pre-front-field of a verb-second clause or front field of a verb-first clause (such as a yes/no question). As a conjunction, aber constitutes the first element of the pivot+ post-pivot structure.

It is not essential – nor is it possible – to clearly determine which “building block” of the pivot construction aber should be assigned to. In fact, such elements seem to only strengthen the argument for an incremental, procedural view of syntax brought forth here and elsewhere (Auer 2000, 2005b; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007; Ford, Fox & Thompson 2003, 2003a, 2003b; Hayashi et al. 2002; Hopper 1998; Lerner 1991; Schegloff 1979). By changing their syntactic status with the development of the emerging structure, lexical elements such as aber seem to constitute “pivots within pivots” and thereby more closely link the distinct elements within a syntactic pivot construction of the kind discussed in this study.



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

2.4.2.2 Modified mirror-image constructions Mirror-image constructions in which the post-pivot is literally a (reverse) copy of the pre-pivot are are most common in examples in which pre-pivot and postpivot constitute frames for quotation, as in (2.21). In my corpus, however, modified mirror-image constructions are much more common. In this type of pivot construction, the shift from pre-pivot to post-pivot structure is accompanied by modifications in the periphery. These may include: 1. changes in temporal and modal characteristics of the verb, as in examples (2.23) and (2.25) 2. lexical substitutions, as in example (2.24) and also (2.10) 3. the addition or dropping of elements, for example particles (cf. Figure 2.2, nau), adverbs, and sentence-initial elements that mark the connection of the turn to the prior talk Such modifications exhibit a wide range in terms of semantics and syntax. They may constitute “minor” semantic or grammatical modifications in the post-pivot structure, such as a shift from the present perfect tense to the preterite, as in (2.23), or a replacement of the finite verb, as in (2.24). (2.23)

gartenˉ[Segment084_Kirsten1A],ˉsimplified

H:ˉ ich hab gedacht (er/ihr) macht ne bierterasse dacht

ich macht ihr I have thought (he/youpl) make a beerdeck thought I make you | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot |  I thoughtˉ(he/you) areˉbuildingˉaˉbeerˉpatioˉIˉthought youˉare building

(2.24)

quatschkomödieˉ[Champaign_C_A1],ˉsimplified

T:ˉ der kommt ja immer bei dieser quatschkomödie is der ja immer he comes prt always at that nonsense comedy is he prt always | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | Heˉ(thatˉguy)(asˉyouˉknow)ˉalwaysˉappearsˉinˉthatˉQuatschkomödie  thatˉguyˉalwaysˉisˉ(asˉyouˉknow)

I term these changes “minor”, because it can be shown (cf. Chapter 3) that in these types of modified mirror-image constructions, the second part of the structure is constructed to be a repetition of the first, thereby serving specific interactional goals.31 Hence, instances (2.23) and (2.24) seem to be structurally close to true mirror-image constructions.

.  The interactional impact, of course, depends on where these pivots are placed in the unfolding sequential structure of the talk. The shift in focus that takes place in every pivot construction (i.e., the pivot element undergoes a shift in sentence position and thus in focus) may be itself interactionally salient (cf. Chapter 4).

 Pivots in German Conversation

The structural changes that occur from pre- to post-pivot may be more salient, however. Consider segment (2.25), in which a shift in verb modality takes place (“worked” > “had to work”). (2.25) gartenˉ[84_Kirsten1A]ˉ(seeˉex.ˉ(6.1)) wir (machn/ham) am garten mussten wir arbeiten; we (make/have) on+the garden had+to we work; | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | weˉ(make/have) inˉtheˉgarden weˉhadˉtoˉwork;

2.4.2.3  Modified constructions Pivot constructions of this type exhibit the most significant changes in the shift from pre-pivot+pivot to pivot+post-pivot construction. They may be significant in two ways: (1) The two structures fused together by the pivot element are entirely different in content (cf. example (2.17)), but they exhibit the same syntactic frame (e.g., they are both declaratives) and the same level of syntactic dependency (i.e., they are both main clauses or both subordinate clauses). (2) The structures implement not only semantic changes, but also either a shift in the sentence level (e.g., from a dependent to a main clause) or a shift in the syntactic frame. The following segment showcases such a shift in syntactic frame from a declarative to a yes/no-question (see also segment (2.16)). (2.26) aussuchenˉ[126_Oregon1A_405]ˉ(seeˉexˉ(6.9)) M:ˉ t.hh was=du konntest du dir das ↑NIch aussuchen. t.hh what=you could you refl that ↑NOt choose. |pre-| pivot | post-pivot | t.hhˉwhat=youˉcouldn’tˉyouˉchooseˉthatˉyourself.

This type of pivot construction has not previously been documented in the literature on syntactic pivots. In fact, Scheutz (2005: 116), based on his collection and on constructed examples, concludes that a transformation of “the sentence mode from a declarative to an interrogative . . . is obviously impossible in a pivot structure as analyzed” in his study. My data show that this type of transformation via pivot constructions does not only occur in every-day interactions but serves specific interactional goals (see Chapter 6). Their systematic use notwithstanding, they are comparatively rare (in my collection of 219 examples, I have 10 occurrences of such shifts), and this may explain the absence of such instances in Scheutz’s data. Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 have outlined basic types of pivot structures based on their syntactic and prosodic make-up and the relationship between pre- and post-pivot elements. In Chapters 3–6, I show that some types of pivot constructions occur more frequently in certain sequential and action environments. It will become apparent that certain types of pivot constructions are particularly well



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

suited for certain kinds of interactional functions, e.g., mirror-image and modified mirror-image structures for post-overlap management (Chapter 3), modified constructions for shifts in action (Chapter 6). 2.4.3  The pivot element: Syntactic function and functional shifts The pivot element is the central “building block” in a pivot construction and, in the linear emergence of the construction, the element that serves as the locus of the syntactic shift. In this section I describe which types of sentence components and syntactic categories may function as pivot elements (Section 2.4.3.1). I also address pivot constructions in which the shift from one construction to the next involves a change in the syntactic function of the pivot element (2.4.3.2). 2.4.3.1  The structure and syntactic function of the pivot element There are various types of elements that occur in pivot position in my collection. They include, in order of frequency and according to their function in the sentence: 1. adverbials, realized as pps or advps (cf. segments (2.10) shakespeare, (2.15) florida, (2.17) dialekte 2, (2.20) ke bamberg, Figure 2.2 vancouver, Figure 2.3 strei­cheleinheiten, (2.22) rosi, (2.24) quatschkomödie, (2.14) germanistik) 2. objects (direct and indirect), realized as NPs (cf. (2.16) bessa, (2.18) weine, (2.23) garten) 3. main clauses (cf. (2.21) de maunen, Chapter 3, segment (3.10) drinking) 4. subjects, realized as NPs (cf. Chapter 5, segments (5.8) motorradunfall, (5.10) frau ulrich, (5.13) unterrichten, (5.21) bar one) 5. dependent clauses (cf. Chapter 6, segment (6.5) helga in ungarn 2 for an example of a conditional clause in pivot position) 6. sentence fragments (cf. Chapter 6, segment (6.7) gorte), and 7. finite verbs (cf. (2.26) aussuchen) While my findings generally corroborate Scheutz’s (2005) findings, both in terms of the main types of sentence elements and syntactic categories found in pivot position and in the relative frequency of occurrence, there are also some differences. In my collection, there are no occurrences of adjectives or stressed pronouns in pivot position. However, these seem to be rare in Scheutz’s (2005) collection as well. Types of pivot elements that are not documented in Scheutz’s data but do occur in mine are dative objects and finite verbs. 2.4.3.2  Shifts in the syntactic function of the pivot element The syntactic function of the elements in pivot positions is generally stable in the shift from the pre-pivot+pivot to pivot+post-pivot structure, i.e., the syntactic func-

 Pivots in German Conversation

tion of the pivot element tends to be the same in both syntactic constructions. Scheutz (2005: 111) notes this to be the case for his entire collection. In my data, there are occurences of syntactic shift. Consider the following segments in which the function of the pivot element, an NP, changes from being the object of a preposition, as in (2.27), or an object NP, as in (2.28), in the pre-pivot+pivot structure to being the subject of the sentence in the pivot+post-pivot structure. (2.27)

rheinalleeˉ[164_Oregon2A_043]ˉ(seeˉex.ˉ(5.17))

1 und dann hab ich noch:ähm (0.2) t.hh bei ä-ä- and then have I

|


also:uhm (0.2) t.hh at uh-uh- ((fullˉname)) pre-pivot

|

pivot

...ˉ

andˉthenˉIˉalsoˉha:veˉuhmˉ(0.2)ˉt.hhˉatˉuh-uh-ˉ
2

(.) schule für wirtschaftsjournalisten .>=heißt des. (.) school for businessjournalists .>=is+named that. ...ˉpivot | post-pivot | (.)ˉschoolˉforˉbusinessˉjournalists.>=isˉwhatˉit’sˉcalled.

(2.28) merengeˉ[30_Ingo_2B_264]ˉ(seeˉex.ˉ(5.19)) und=eh (0.1) da

gibts

hier jetzt son

and=uh (0.1) there gives+it here now |

pre-pivot

meRE:nge heißt

das.

such+a ((name)) is+named that. | pivot |

and=uhˉ(0.1)ˉthereˉisˉthisˉmeRE:ngeˉit’sˉcalled.

post-pivot

|

In my collection, these types of examples are rare and seem to be a strategy limited to noun phrases consisting of or including proper names (see Chapter 5). Thus, while my findings differ from those of Scheutz (2005), the frequency with which such pivots occur in my data seems to point in the same direction for the prototypical structure of the pivot element. At this point, a brief look at findings for pivot constructions in other languages will allow for a broader view of the connection between German syntax and the prototypical structure of pivot constructions in German. While some grammatical features of German offer resources for participants to construct syntactic pivot structures in the first place, others may limit the availability of certain kinds of pivot constructions. German is a morphologically rich language, especially with respect to case marking. While case marking allows for a relatively free positioning of subject and object(s) in the sentence, it would obviously put clear limits on what types of syntactic constituents can serve two different functions simultaneously. Findings from English and Swedish, languages with very limited case marking, support this line of argument (Norén 2007; Walker 2007). Walker (2007: 2219) presents the following example of a pivot construction in which the central element the bone undergoes a change in syntactic function from an object noun phrase to a subject noun phrase:



Chapter 2.  Preliminaries 

(2.29) theˉboneˉ[NB.IV.3–185s;ˉPIV005] 1 Emm: but I(’d) l:ove the bone was so:: beautifˉehˉthe 2 pinkˉwasˉexquisite

This shift would not be syntactically possible in German, because the singular masculine noun “der Knochen”/the bone would carry different case marking on the determiner in the two structures: “den Knochen” as a direct object and “der Knochen” as the subject. While such shifts would be possible for certain nouns (where the form of the morphological marking in different cases are collapsed), they are clearly much more limited in German. This might explain why functional shifts do not occur in Scheutz’s (2005) data and are rare in my collection but are documented by Walker (2007) in his relatively limited collection of 33 occurrences of pivot constructions in English.

2.5  Summary In this chapter, I first provided a brief description of some key features of the syntax of spoken German. I outlined general word order rules and discussed the concept of the German sentence brace. The description of word order rules was limited to those aspects relevant for the ensuing data analyses. For more information about word order rules in spoken German and the syntax of spoken German in general, see, e.g., Altmann (1981), Auer (1992, 2005a), Durrell (2003), Egbert (2002b, 2003), Franck (1980), Günthner (2000a), Schlobinski (1997), Schwitalla (2003), Selting (1994, 1995a, 1999, 2005a, 2001, 2007a), Stein (2003), Uhmann (1996, 2001). I then provided an overview of the formal structure of syntactic pivot constructions in everyday German. I only touched on work done on pivot constructions in other languages at points where it helped to highlight structural features specific to German. For more extensive discussions of the structure of pivots in languages other than German, the reader is referred to Lindström (2005) and especially Norén (2003a, 2007) for Swedish and Walker (2004b, 2007) for English. There is also some documentation for the occurrence of pivots in interactional settings other than mundane everyday conversation: Poncin (2003) uses data from task-oriented discourse, while Norén (2007) includes data from certain institutional settings (TV interviews, talk shows, police interrogations) in his data base. For an example of a pivot used in a German business meeting interaction, see Chapter 4, example (4.10). I also outlined how pivots may be distinguishable from verb-first constructions and from other practices for extending turns, such as rightward expansions

 Pivots in German Conversation

in German (Auer 1991, 1992, 1996a, 2006, 2007b; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007). I noted that turn expansions can themselves function as pivot elements. The next chapter (Chapter 3) will continue to discuss how pivot constructions may be similar to or different from other resources that speakers have available to extend their turn-in-progress, including rush-throughs and abrupt-joins (Local & Walker 2004; Schegloff 1981, 1987a, 1998). The next four chapters (Chapters 3–6) put the pivots described and classified above in their conversational context. The analyses showcase how speakers, in constructing pivot constructions, use – rather, “exploit” – word order rules in German to extend a turn in progress and thereby achieve local interactional goals.

chapter 3

Pivot constructions as a syntactic resource for turn-taking Managing overlap 3.1  Introduction Pivot constructions rely on structural properties of a language (word order rules), and the notion of syntactic completion. Prosodic features are essential in preserving the syntactic “ambiguity” of such structures. Thus, syntactic pivots provide prime examples for studying how language structures are shaped by the requirements of talk-in-interaction (Hakulinen & Selting 2005b; Ochs et al. 1996; Selting & Couper-Kuhlen 2001), and how prosody and meaning interact (e.g., CouperKuhlen & Selting 1996). In this chapter, I discuss the systematic use of pivot constructions in the environment of simultaneous talk by two or more speakers, more specifically as a device to manage the demands put on the stretch of interaction following overlap. In other words, they serve to recover possibly impaired talk. The use of pivots in such environments suggests that they present a systematic resource for turn-taking, that is, for managing the distribution of speakership and recipiency in interaction. Moreover, the analyses in this Chapter show that pivots can shed light on the coordination of eye-gaze, participation, and talk (Bavelas, Coates & Johnson 2002; C. Goodwin 1981; Goodwin & Goodwin 1992; Kendon 1967, 1990; Kleinke 1986; Lerner 2003; Rossano 2005, 2006; Streeck 1993). It has been described (e.g., Ford et al. 1996; Sacks et al. 1974) that potential places for speaker change open up at points where grammar, action, and phonetic design come to completion. However, speakers have various resources at their disposal to extend their turn in progress past such a point of possible completion and thus “gain the right” to continue to talk. These include prosodic and syntactic resources. Pivots belong to the latter. In using pivot constructions, speakers employ syntactic resources to effectively skip a place where speaker change could occur. As a means to extend one’s turn in progress, pivot constructions can be employed to achieve local interactional goals. Since the use of pivots I describe in this chapter is related to the machinery of speaker selection and speaker change, I start out with

 Pivots in German Conversation

a sketch of turn-taking in interaction (3.1.1), discuss representative examples of my data and findings (3.2), and conclude by outlining implications for the study of syntax and the study of non-verbal aspects of interaction (3.3). 3.1.1  Turn-taking in interaction The primary methods by which participants organize actions, negotiate meaning and accomplish understanding are the regularities of turn and sequence organization. Turn-taking regularities include establishing who gets to speak when, where, and for how long in a way that is “locally managed, party-administered, interactionally controlled and sensitive to recipient design” (Sacks et al. 1974:  696). Speakers construct their vocal and non-vocal conduct with respect to their coparticipants’ behavior. Participants who are not currently speakers in turn closely monitor unfolding talk on a moment-by-moment basis and display their understanding of it (Sacks 1987; Schegloff 1981; Schegloff & Sacks 1973). In interaction, talk is constructed “a bit at a time” (Schegloff 2007). Each bit is dealt with by the participants in light of what preceded it and, as the talk continues, also in light of the understanding that is displayed by the co-participant(s). Because talk occurs in real time, its central property is “directionality” (Schegloff et al. 1996: 19), i.e., the emergence and availability of observable structure as interactional time elapses. In real time, contingent on the activity type in progress, and using the regularities of turn-taking practices, grammatical structure and prosody as resources (Auer 1996a; Ford et al. 2002b; Ford & Thompson 1996; Schegloff 1996b, 1998; Selting 2000), participants to interaction project when a turn is possibly complete and when it is thus appropriate or relevant to start speaking. Turn yielding can be said to be “the unmarked device and turn holding ... the marked device in turn-taking” (cf. Selting 2000: 511; Sacks et al. 1974) at points of possible (syntactic, prosodic, and pragmatic) completion. Extending a turn beyond such a point, that is, the activity of turn-holding, regularly requires interactional work (cf., e.g., Auer 1991, 1996a; Lerner 2004a; Local & Walker 2004; Sacks 1992; Schegloff 1987a, 1987c; Selting 1996a, 2000, 2004a; Walker 2004b). There are various (syntactic) strategies that participants have at their disposal for adding unprojected elements to a TCU or turn,31 including: 1.  TCU-internal expansion: By adding unprojected elements before a first or next possible completion (Lerner 2004a: 153), for example a parenthetical remark

.  For recipient-administered practices of extending a turn, see Lerner (2004a), who describes the orderly use of conjunctions and other “parts of speech” as stand-alone prompts for speakers to add another, type-specific, increment to their turn. See also Davidson (1984).



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

(Duvallon & Routarinne 2005; Schönherr 1993; Stoltenburg 2007), speakers can expand a turn-in-progress while retaining the projection set up in the talk preceding the expansion. 2.  Cut-off/restart, reprojection: By cutting off a construction in progress and restarting, a speaker may add unprojected elements to a turn and initiate reprojection. This type of expansion occurs before a first possible completion, but does not constitute a TCU-internal increment (Lerner 2004a: 176).32 3.  Expansion after possible TCU completion (cf. Auer 1996a; Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007; Ford et al. 2002a; Lerner 2004a; Schegloff 1996b, 2000; Walker 2004b): Speakers may expand a turn-in-progress beyond a possible syntactic completion point. Such expansions can also be employed to “skip-connect” to the final TCU of a previous turn across intervening talk by another speaker, thus constructing new talk as a continuation of the prior (Lerner 2004a: 156–157; Sacks 1992: vol. II: 349). The occurrence and frequency of different types of turn continuations seems to be dependent on language grammar, specifically the availability of strong syntactic closure (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007). Speakers also have a variety of prosodic resources available to indicate that a TCU that is projectable as nearing possible completion is indeed constructed to be complete at the next possible completion point. These include characteristics of volume, speed, stress, and pitch. Thus, in order to extend a turn beyond its possible completion, for example to “win out” in an overlap situation, speakers may suppress prosodic signals of upcoming completion. 1.  Increase in speed/temporal compression: TCU-final slowing-down has been observed to be associated with the end of turns in English (Local, Kelly & Wells 1986; Ogden 2001). Schegloff (1987a: 104), for example, observes a “ “drawl” or sound stretch [as] often found in last words or syllables.” Thus, speeding up can be used as a preemptive move just before a point of possible completion to avoid signaling the end of a turn. Moreover, by talking through “the slight gap of silence which commonly intervenes between one unit and another” (Schegloff 1987a: 104), speakers gain the right to extend the turn-in-progress (“rush-through”, ­Schegloff 1981, 1987a, 1998). This latter resource seems to be available in German as well (Selting 2005a).

.  By connecting two possibly independent syntactic units in such a way that the actual point at which the shift from one to the next occurs is obscured (or its recognition delayed) for the co-participant, syntactic pivots constitute a powerful strategy for turn expansion. As will become clear, syntactic pivots may thus be considered a special, unmarked expansion that initiates reprojection (Fox 1993: 108).

 Pivots in German Conversation

2.  Volume discontinuity: Changes in volume may also be associated with turn extensions and with speakership competition. A significant upstep in loudness may be employed as a resource in overlapped talk, marking a (continued) claim to speakership (Schegloff 2000). Changes in loudness (diminuendo followed by sudden forte at the joints between TCUs) are also a characteristic feature of “abruptjoins” in English (Local & Walker 2004), and in German (Auer & Rönfeld 2004; Rönfeld & Auer 2002). 3.  Pitch patterns: Certain pitch configurations, combined with grammatical and pragmatic features, mark transition relevance (Ford & Thompson 1996; Local et al. 1986; Selting 2000). These are typically absent from turns designed as not yet complete. In German, terminal falling or rising pitch with respect to the speaker’s pitch range signal turn yielding, whereas final level or only slightly rising pitch is used to signal turn holding (cf. Gilles 2001; Kern 2007; Selting 1996a, 2000, 2001). Moreover, pitch peaks close to a possible completion of a TCU seem to function as “a carrier whose syntactic properties and placement can have it heard as projecting upcoming completion of turn” (Schegloff 1998: 241) in American English (cf. also Duncan 1972; Schegloff 1996b) and German (Auer 1996a). In sum, prosodic features that can be identified as associated with and projecting upcoming intended TCU and turn completion (terminal pitch patterns, pitch peaks, etc.) are typically absent when speakers are pursuing an extension of the turn-in-progress. This presents a systematic resource for speakers to suppress the signaling of transition relevance. 3.1.2  Syntactic pivots and turn continuation Several of the features described above also characterize pivot construction. Segments (3.1) and (3.2) will serve as illustrations. (3.1) IdaˉandˉJenˉ(takenˉfromˉWalkerˉ2007: 2227),ˉexcerpt,ˉmodifiedˉtranscript Ida:ˉ that’s what I want you to come rou:n:d | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot |ˉ

(3.2) tennisfeeˉ[31_Ingo1B_280],ˉsimplifiedˉ(seeˉsegmentˉ(3.3))

X: ich hab hie:r 〈zwei frauen〉 hab ich ja gut hier anner hand.

I |

have he:re 〈twoˉwomen〉 pre-pivot

|

pivot

have I

|

prt well here at+the hand.

post-pivot

|

 Iˉhaveˉhe:reˉ〈twoˉwomen〉ˉIˉhaveˉhereˉprettyˉmuchˉatˉmyˉdisposal.

Pivot constructions present a means to connect two syntactic structures through a shared element, resulting in one extended turn constructional unit.



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

Prosodic features are essential in “bringing off ” the pre-pivot –pivot – post-pivot structure as one turn constructional unit33 and thus for its success in extending a speaker’s turn. These features may include the absence of final slowing down in English, as in (3.1), lack of terminal pitch at possible grammatical completion points, as in (3.1) and (3.2), and the regularly close proximity between the pivot element and the talk following it. Segments (3.1) and (3.2) also show that pivot constructions typically do not exhibit strongly marked features such as dramatic temporal compression and shortenings observed in rush-through practices (Schegloff 1998) and volume shifts observed in abrupt-joins (Local & Walker 2004). The difference between employing a pivot and using other practices for turn continuation, therefore, has fundamental interactional implications. In using the practices of rush-through or abrupt-joins, speakers mark their practice interactionally as a preemptive move, i.e., as preventing another speaker from starting up or as suppressing a possible TRP, and making the necessary additional interactive work visible. Pivot constructions, on the other hand, seem to present an “unmarked” form of extending one’s turn (Lerner 2004a: 176). They draw no attention to the possibility of transition relevance, thus effectively eliminating it, or, as Sacks (1992: 146) put it: “You end up having in effect done two sentences, but there’s never been a chance for a hearer to find a first possible completion of the first. (...) The utterance is still open and a first possible completion has again to be watched for” (Sacks 1992: 146). This difference between on the one hand ostensibly “interdicting” (Schegloff 1987a: 104) a possible transition relevance point and thus making it visible, and on the other hand eliminating the very possibility of a TRP, is interactionally crucial. The latter not only achieves an extension of the speaker’s turn, but it makes turn continuation in the specific context in which the pivot is employed “legitimate” (cf. Walker 2007: 2222 for a similar line of argument). Thus, in contrast to other resources that serve to override a point of possible completion, pivot constructions effectively delete a possible TRP, resulting in one extended TCU. Across my data, the basic function of pivots is to extend a turn in progress, but the interactional motivation for such an extension is locally determined. Within the larger organization of turn-taking in interaction, two local motivations of pivot use are worth mention: First, pivots are used to extend a speaker’s turn to recycle overlapped talk and thus possibly impaired information. Pivots used in this interactional environment tend to have a mirror-image-like structure (cf. Chapter 2)

.  This is particularly important for pivot constructions in which the structure pre-pivot + pivot constitutes a syntactically and prosodically possibly complete TCU.

 Pivots in German Conversation

and the action carried out by the pre-pivot+pivot is redone in the pivot+post-pivot structure. Second, syntactic pivots, in addition to being used to negotiate speakership, are also used as a resource at sequential boundaries. Here, a speaker can perform a (sequential) shift from a responsive to a sequence-initiating move within one unit. In these environments, the pivot+post-pivot structure differs in content from the initial structure and also instantiates a different action. This chapter focuses on the first of these two functions. Besides describing the basic function of pivots in this environment, I will describe some aspects of the coordination of verbal and non-verbal resources in the emergence of pivot structures that are employed to manage the structure of participation in interaction. Chapter 4 will discuss pivots structures as resources at sequential and topic boundaries.

3.2  Pivots used in post-overlap environments 3.2.1  Overlap management in conversation In naturally-occurring conversations, “overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time” (Sacks et al. 1974: 700, 706). Occurrences of more than one party talking at a time are, overall, very brief. Participants have an organized set of devices at their disposal to deal with violations of the rule of “one at a time” (Schegloff 1987a: 71) by either anticipating possible impairment of the talk (Schegloff 1987c; but see also Jefferson, 1983c) or dealing with it (Schegloff 2000, 2002; but see also Jefferson 1983a). A common strategy for speakers to reissue overlapped talk is to produce a cutoff and a restart. Speakers of German may alternatively employ pivots in overlap resolution. In the examples I discuss below, pivots are used as a strategy to transition from overlapped talk to talk that is in the clear and can be properly attended to by the co-participant(s). A pivot then accomplishes both the shift from overlapped talk to talk in the clear in one continuous syntactic structure and the production of postoverlap talk as a “legitimate” continuation, not a reissuing of prior talk. By eliminating a possible transition space, pivots seem to constitute the most unmarked form to extend a turn in progress (Fox 1993: 108) in this specific context. Pivots allow a speaker to continue an ongoing turn beyond its completion point projected at the outset of the turn. However, pivots are not a strategy for overlap resolution, i.e., for emerging from overlap as the single speaker. Thus, they do not constitute an alternative to vowel stretches and increases in volume and speed (Schegloff 2000). Instead, pivot constructions serve to solve a problem that a speaker face after emerging as single speaker from overlap: how to recover information that was possibly lost or impaired. Pivot constructions thus constitute an alternative practice to restarts and recycled turn-beginnings.



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

As will become clear in the data analysis, the use of a pivot in its sequential environment may help accomplish more than one interactional goal. However, I will argue that in all but one example (cf. (3.10)) in my collection of pivots in post-overlap, the recycling of information after overlap (and ensuring that information can be properly received) is the main purpose for which the pivot construction is employed. Because changes in the placement of sentence elements occur in the emergence of a pivot structure, its use to recover and reissue information will regularly entail additional interactionally relevant changes. Insofar as their import can be traced as relevant in the participants’ conduct, I will describe them. 3.2.2  Data discussion Of the functions pivots serve in the organization of turn-taking (this chapter), sequence and topic organization (Chapter 4), in the organization of repair (Chapter 5) and in embedded self-correction (Chapter 6) in interaction, pivots in post-overlap seem to be rather specialized.34 In my collection of 219 pivots, I identified 11 occurrences of pivots that seem to serve (in first order) the specific purpose of recovering information from overlap or, more generally, dealing with interactional problems that result from overlapped talk.35 9 of these examples are from my data of Colloquial Standard German (CSG), 3 from telephone, 6 from face-to-face interactions. 2 examples stem from my collection of every-day interactions in Siebenbürger Sächsisch, one from a telephone, one from a face-to-face interaction. The following presents an analysis of representative examples. 3.2.2.1  Dealing with overlap in telephone interactions The first segment is taken from a telephone conversation between Xaver, a student in Germany, and Manuel, currently a student in the US. Xaver and Manuel were fellow students in Germany and share a passion for playing tennis. Manuel has just enthusiastically proposed to make plans for playing doubles after his return to Germany. This enthusiasm is not shared by Xaver, who assesses playing doubles as “boring” (not in excerpt). Following a challenge by Manuel, Xaver modifies his stance and Manuel moves into sequence closing (line 10).

.  The data used in Walker (2007) corroborate this. Out of 33 data examples of pivots in English interactions, there was only one occurrence of a pivot used to recycle information after overlap (Walker 2007: 2227). .  2 further examples I collected come from mundane English conversations.

 Pivots in German Conversation

(3.3) OR2ˉtennisfeeˉ[31_Ingo1B_280] 10 M:ˉ okee. ich werde mich [erst mal erkund-ˉ] okay. I will refl [first findˉou-ˉ] okay. Iˉwill [first findˉou-ˉ] [ˉ ] 11 X:ˉ [so-ˉson gemisch]tes doppel. [like-ˉlikeaˉ mi]xed doubles. [likeˉaˉ(suchˉa) mi]xed doubles.

12



13 X:ˉ khhh

(.)



14 M:ˉ HH ahähähähä .hh ja von mir aus kömmer das HH aheHEHEHE .hh prt as far as I am concerned canwe that HH aheHEHEHE .hh prt as far as I am concerned we can 15



*X:ˉthroatyˉlaugh* ma*chen.ˉ((smileˉvoice)) do. doˉthat.

→ 16 X:ˉ ja prt prt 17 M:ˉ

[ich hab hie:r ] 〈zwei frauen〉 hab ich ja gut hier= [I have he:re ] 〈twoˉwomen〉 have I prt well here= [I have he:re ] 〈twoˉwomen〉 I have here pretty much= [ ] [ ] [re〈n↓a:te?〉 ] [((woman’sˉname))] [re〈n↓a:te?〉 ]

→ 18 X:ˉ =anner hand. =at+the hand. =atˉmyˉdisposal.

19 M:ˉ ach ha- ach so. =und wir ham ja noch hier. was macht oh ha- (oh) I see. =and we have prt still here. what does oh ha- (oh) I see. =and weˉstillˉhaveˉprt here. what does 20

dennˉ〈unsere:〉 prtˉ〈o:ur〉



(0.8)

21

22 M:ˉ °°a-°° (.) unsere kleine tennisspieler[in:. ] °°uh-°° (.) our little tennis player[fem:. ] ˉ[ ] 23 X:ˉ [über ]haupt, (.) äh [any ]way, (.) uh 24 °〈kleine tennisfee?〉° barbara? °〈little tennis fairy?〉° ((name)) °〈little tennis fairy?〉° barbara?



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 



25 M:ˉ barbara. genau= barbara. exactly= 26 X:ˉ =weiß ich nich hab ich gar keinen kontakt mehr zu. =know I not have I int no contact anymore to. =don’tˉknowˉhaveˉabsolutelyˉnoˉcontactˉanymoreˉtoˉ(her).

Manuel’s okee in line 10 (see Barske 2006; Beach 1993) and his announcement of next steps based on the now established common ground (i.e., investigating who would be available for doubles) marks the sequence as closed. In overlap with Manuel’s move into sequence closing (line 10), Xaver reopens the sequence. Xaver’s turn, in which he defines under which circumstances playing doubles would be fun, is followed by a micro pause and Xaver’s indication of the way his remark should be perceived (conspiratory laughter, line 13). Manuel joins into Xaver’s laughter (line 14) and accepts his proposal, upon which Xaver provides further support for the feasibility of his plan: He already has two female players “at his disposal” (line 16–18). In overlap with Xaver’s first TCU (line 16), Manuel, who seems to be pursuing a similar line of action, i.e., compiling a list of possible female candidates for a future game, mentions a potential doubles partner (line 17). This mentioning is done as a first in a list (Jefferson 1990; Selting 2007b), but abandoned in the face of simultaneous talk by Manuel. Once ­Xaver’s turn in line 16 is in the clear, he continues with a next item which is structurally and pragmatically due (the object NP zwei frauen/“two women”) and then adds a finite verb (hab/“have”). Although verb-first declaratives exist and are deployed systematically in German (see Chapter 2 , this volume), hab does not seem to be the beginning of a new (verb-first) construction, because the previous construction is pragmatically and prosodically incomplete. Thus, it seems that the NP zwei frauen needs to be reanalyzed as the first position element of a new syntactic structure, in which hab is the finite verb.36 The resulting construction is one unit of talk structured as follows: (3.4)

OR2ˉtennisfee,ˉpivotˉstructure



ja [ich hab hie:r]ˉ〈zweiˉfrauen〉 〈zweiˉfrauen〉 hab ich ja gut hier anner hand. ja [ich hab hie:r] 〈zwei frauen〉 hab ich ja gut hier anner hand. | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot |  [Iˉhaveˉhe:reˉ]ˉ〈twoˉwomen〉ˉIˉhaveˉhereˉprettyˉmuchˉatˉmyˉdisposal.

.  This ambiguity as to which of the two constructions zwei frauen belongs is possible because of certain syntactic rules of German. German exhibits V2 word order in declaratives (Eisenberg 1989). A movement of a direct object NP from a post-verbal to a pre-verbal position makes subject movement necessary. S+V+OBJ in “unmarked” or unfocused word order turns into OBJ+V+S in OBJ-focused word order. In this example, the turn is thus structured as follows (simplified): S+V1+OBJ+V2+S. The object NP can be included in either construction (prepivot+pivot or pivot+post-pivot) without violating word order rules; it is the shared element.

 Pivots in German Conversation

Once in the clear, Xaver utters zwei frauen (tempo and stress seem to provide evidence that this is pragmatically the core of the turn), then continues the turn in a regressive fashion. In recycling all elements of the pre-pivot in the post-pivot structure, Xaver uses the pivot to accomplish post-overlap tasks, i.e., the repeating/reissuing of talk to ensure that his contribution can be properly attended to by the coparticipant. It is important to note that prosody and intonation patterns in this construction preserve ambiguity as to its syntactic structure. No pauses or other signs of hesitation occur between the pivot element and the post-pivot structure.37 No pitch changes make a structural turning point (the transition from pre-pivot + pivot to pivot + post-pivot) obvious for the co-participant. Pivots, then, can be used in post overlap environments to recycle information that was possibly impaired during overlap. More generally, pivots seem to serve to ensure unobstructed delivery of talk such that it can be properly attended to by a recipient. The next data sample provides another example of a pivot used to join two units to extend a turn-in-progress once the speaker emerges in the clear. This example is structurally more complex: The structural transition entails a substantial change in the stance expressed, both through the use of a particle and through a change in the question format. In this example (and in others in my collection), this change emerges as the result of syntactic constraints. Manuel and Xaver have been making arrangements to ship a tennis racket which Xaver, in a previous conversation, had asked Manuel to buy for him in the US. After some time is spent on discussing whether the item should be shipped before Manuel’s return to Germany, Manuel initiates a topic closing (line 4) using the future-oriented expression mal schaun/“we’ll see.” After a pause (line 5), Xaver provides the response elicited by Manuel in line 3 (Harren 2001), thus aligning with the proposed closing of the topic, and Manuel produces a minimal sequence closing third in line 7. (3.5)

OR5ˉbessaˉ[Segment046_Ingo2A]



4 M:ˉ ma(n)- mal schau:n: ne? prt- prt see:ˉ prt? we’ll-ˉwe’llˉsee:ˉokay?

5

(0.5)

.  The lengthening on the vowel of hie:r seems to indicate turn competition in overlap (Schegloff 2000).



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

6 X:ˉ 〈o:kee〉= 〈o:kay〉=

7 M:ˉ =okee. =okay.

→ 8 M:ˉ so.wie ge[hts denn (dem) raffa〉e ]l gehts wieda= so.how go[es+it prt (for+the) ((name)) ] goes+it again= so. how[‘s prt raffa〉e]lˉisˉbetterˉagain= ˉ[ ] 9 X:ˉ

[ 〈alles [ 〈all [ 〈allright (then)〉

kla:r〉 ] clear〉 ] ]

→ 10 M:ˉ =bessa.=ne, =better.=prt, =right,

11

(0.9)

12 X:ˉ raffael is fit dra:uf. (.) sieht gut a::us ((name)) is in good shape. (.) looks good raffaelˉisˉinˉgoodˉshape.(.)ˉisˉlookingˉgood

13 X:ˉ .hhhh



14 X:ˉ ä=obwohl

ich ja hier im

augnblick (.) ziemlich viel



uh=although I

15

*slurredˉspeech* erfolg habe; so:=äh eh *bei den frauen.* success have; like:=uh uh *with the women.* popular;ˉlike:ˉ=uhˉuhˉ*withˉtheˉladies.*



prt here at+the moment

(.) rather

uh=althoughˉIˉamˉ(it’sˉmeˉwhoˉis)ˉatˉtheˉmomentˉquite

much

In line 8, Manuel self-selects to initiate the next topic. In overlap with Xaver, who makes a move into conversation closing (line 9) by producing the overall assessment alles kla:r/“allright (then)” (cf. Button 1987, 1990; Luke & Pavlidou 2002; Pavlidou 1994, 1997, 1998; Raitaniemi & Harren 2006; Schegloff & Sacks 1973). Manuel inquires about the well-being of a common acquaintance, thereby initiating a new sequence and providing Xaver with a ticket to a telling. Wieda and the use of the comparative bessa display that there is previous knowledge on Manuel’s part that Raffael was not doing well. Manuel’s inquiry, however, is delivered almost in its entirety in overlap with Xaver’s move to closing in line 9, and the last element of the syntactically and pragmatically possibly complete TCU (raffa>el) exhibits characteristics of turn competition (stress, tempo). After emerging into

 Pivots in German Conversation

the clear, Manuel does not launch a new start,38 but instead continues his turn as follows: (3.6)

OR5ˉbessa,ˉpivotˉstructure

so.wie ge[hts denn (dem) raffa>e]l (dem) raffa>e]l gehts wieda bessa.=ne, so.wie ge[hts denn (dem) raffa>e]l gehts wieda bessa.=ne, | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | so. how[‘s raffa〉e]l is better again right,

The next item uttered after the NP (dem) raffael is geht’s/“goes it/is”, which reissues the already uttered verb geht’s. Prosodic features of pre-pivot + pivot (no final intonation and slight upspeed on last syllable of raffael) suggest that geht’s is not the beginning of a new TCU with V1 structure (a question or V1 declarative, see Chapter 2), but instead the continuation of the previous. This makes necessary a reanalysis of the function of the dative object dem raffael as both the last element of wie geht’s denn (dem) raffael and the first element of (dem) raffael geht’s wieda bessa.=ne. Both are syntactically possible in German. In contrast to instance (3.3) tennisfee, this pivot construction exhibits more syntactic complexity: Pre-pivot + pivot and pivot + post-pivot are both inquiries, but they are done in different formats. The former constitutes a wh-question, whereas the latter takes the shape of a candidate understanding to the pre-pivot + pivot structure, a possibly complete sentence. It is followed by the response pursuit ne, which makes confirmation or agreement relevant and preferred (Harren, 2001). The transition from one format to the next happens during the overlap. Because raffael is the last word of a possibly complete unit and action and because the co-participant moves into closing in overlap with Manuel, it seems to be especially important for Manuel to continue his turn and bring the overlapped talk into the open. The shape of the post-overlap talk thus seems to be motivated by two factors: 1. a difference in action trajectories between speaker and co-participant, the former pursuing a new topic, the latter having proposed conversation closing 2. the (resulting) overlap, which renders Manuel’s contribution possibly unattended to

.  In fact, the practice of recycled turn beginnings might not be available to the speaker in this context, as (1) the turn does not begin where the current TCU starts and (2) the ongoing syntactic construction has come to a possible completion while still in overlap (see Schegloff 1987c, for constraints on recycling an overlapped turn).



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap

The restructuring and reprojection of the TCU-in-progress while still in overlap offers a strategy for Manuel to extend his turn beyond Xaver’s contribution and to a next possible completion point. Moreover, it leads to a reanalysis of dem raffael as belonging to a new structure, and thus to an analysis of the pivot + post-pivot structure as initiated before the end of Xaver’s turn. The point of transition in a pivot construction is indeterminable, and this serves to create the characteristic impression of pre-pivot, pivot, and post-pivot as one unit. I argue that the pivot construction is employed in this sequential context because it can manage two constraints on Manuel’s turn: It continues the turn beyond a point of possible completion, and it overrides the response made relevant by Xaver’s turn in line 9. Using a pivot construction, the speaker smoothly accomplishes this by eliminating a point of possible speaker transition. The change in syntactic format (from a question to a declarative) is necessitated by the specific merging strategy used here. A syntactic structure with a noun in first position and a verb in second (pivot + post-pivot) must be a declarative. The response pursuit marker ne reclaims (thus recycling) the sequential strength of a wh-format (pre-pivot + pivot), or the strength of the “sequential implicativeness” (Schegloff & Sacks 1973), by pursuing a response.39 3.2.2.2  Dealing with overlap in face-to-face interactions The following excerpts, take from interactions between co-present parties, provide further examples in which the use of a pivot as a strategy for post-overlap management makes necessary changes later in the turn. In data sample (3.7) weine, as in (3.5) bessa, these changes involve syntactic restructuring. In segment (3.10) drinking, they affect the choice of lexical items. These data thus support a view of syntactic structures as emerging in interaction in real time, as opposed to viewing syntax as pre-planned (cf. Hopper 1998; Jespersen 1924; Langacker 1987; Ochs et al. 1996: Introduction; Ono & Thompson 1995; Streeck 1995). In segment (3.7), Annette and Sybille are talking about wines that they enjoy drinking. Bernhard, Sybille’s husband, and David, Annette’s husband, are also present. Annette has just informed Sybille that German Riesling is a popular wine in the United States. She then makes a move to elicit an assessment from Sybille about this kind of wine (line 1).

.  The use of tags at the end of pivot+post-pivot structure to reclaim the sequential strength of the pre-pivot+pivot seems systematic in my data. These extensions are used in constructions in which a shift in syntactic frame occurs (e.g., from a wh- or yes/no-question to a declarative; see Chapter 6 for other examples of this shift). Besides the response pursuit marker ne, speakers in my data use oder was/“or what” as well as address terms in this function.



 Pivots in German Conversation (3.7)

OR4ˉweineˉ[FS1.32.09]

1 A:ˉ trinkst du gerne riesling? drink you adv ((name))? doˉyouˉlikeˉtoˉdrinkˉriesling?

 ((4ˉsec.ˉomitted:ˉAˉassessesˉrieslingeˉasˉsüßlich/’kindˉofˉsweet;’ˉSˉ

doesˉnotˉprovide aˉsecondˉassessmentˉbutˉstatesˉherˉgeneralˉpreference regardingˉwinesˉasˉfollows:))



2 S:ˉ franzosen (.) ode:r italie↓ner trink ich [am liebsten. french (.) o:r itali↓ans drink I [adv-superl. frenchˉwines (.)ˉo:r italianˉwinesˉIˉlike [(toˉdrink)ˉmost. [ 3 A:ˉ [aberˉmoselweine.= [butˉ((type)).=40 [butˉmoselˉwines.=

4





5

=ich weiß nich 〈warum〉 so viele moselweine in den uˉesˉa =I know not 〈why〉 so many mosel wines in the us =Iˉdon’tˉknowˉwhyˉsoˉmanyˉmoselˉwines *SˉlooksˉatˉA **Sˉavertsˉgaze;ˉAˉlooksˉatˉS





ver*kauft **werden. s*old **are. areˉsoldˉinˉtheˉus.



(.)ˉ((Sˉnodsˉlightly))

6



7 A:ˉ [unglaublich viel r]iesling. [unbelievably much r]iesling. [ ] 8 S:ˉ [we:::il, ] [beca::: use, ]

9 S:ˉ .h[hhhˉmosel, .h[hhhˉmosel, .h[hhhˉmosel, [

(.)] weil e[r lieb]lich ist. (.)] because h[e swee]t is. (.)] because i[t is]sweet. ] [ ]

((fromˉkitchen)) 10 B:ˉ [ja weil er lieblich ist] [yes bacause he sweet is] [yesˉbecauseˉit’sˉsweet ]

11





(0.3)

12 B:ˉ weil



[ist das.] [is that.] [is why.]

er etwas

*SˉlooksˉatˉB,ˉthenˉdownˉagain*

lieblich is:, *und em: *=ähn:=.hh des is

because he a little sweet

is:, *and prt: *=uhn:=.hh that is

becauseˉit’sˉaˉlittleˉsweet,ˉ*andˉprt=*uhn:ˉ=.hhˉthatˉis

.  Moselweine are wines grown along the river Mosel in Germany.



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 



13 B:ˉ eben son leichter wein. der mosel is ja viel leichter prt such+a light wine. the ((name)) is prt much lighter prtˉaˉkindˉofˉlightˉwine.ˉmoselˉisˉasˉyouˉknowˉmuchˉlighter

14



als der rheingauer oder der rheinhessen than the ((nameˉofˉwine)) or the ((nameˉofˉwine)) thanˉrheingauerˉorˉrheinhessen

15 B:ˉ .hhhh ((sitsˉdown))

16 B:ˉ is en [leichterˉWEIN,- ] is a [lightˉWINE,- ] [ ] *Bˉmovesˉchair,ˉposture.. → 17 A:ˉ((toˉB)) [un dann ham se EI]NEN wein *den es ü*berall [and then have they A]-acc wine *that is e*verywhere [and then they have A] wine that is everywhere

→ 18

...............ˉ*BˉlooksˉatˉA

gibt=das is *lieb〈frauenm↓ilch〉 [(2ˉsyll)] (2ˉsyll).] that is *((nameˉofˉwine)) [(2ˉsyll)] (2ˉsyll).] that’s *lieb〈frauenm↓ilch〉 [(2ˉsyll)] (2ˉsyll).] [ ] [*S:ˉgazeˉshiftˉtoˉB* ] [*A:ˉgazeˉshiftˉtoˉS* ] 19 S:ˉ [*UÄ[ÄÄÄ ]ÄH* das]ˉis= [*UA[AAA ]AH* that]ˉis= [ ] 20 B:ˉ [ja. ] [yes.]



21 S:ˉ =[sowasˉbilliges =[such+aˉcheapˉthing =[suchˉcheapˉstuff



*BˉnodsˉtoˉA*

22 D:ˉ [achˉ*ja* ((+ˉnodˉnod)) [prtˉ*yes* ((+ˉnodˉnod)) [ohˉ*that’sˉright* ((+ˉnodˉnod))

23 D:ˉ [das ] [that ] [ ] 24 B:ˉ [das: ] liebfrau[enmilch. [that+is] ((na[me)) [that’sˉ] liebfrauenmilch. [ [ *A:ˉgazeˉshiftˉtoˉD

 Pivots in German Conversation

25 A:ˉ



[oder *[roter k- [or *[redmasc k- [or *[red c- [

26 D:ˉ



[

]nee was is= ]no: what is= ]no: what’s that= ]

*looksˉatˉA,ˉeyebrowsˉraised

[nodˉnodˉ*kn-] [nodˉnodˉ*kn-]



27 A:ˉ =das mit der katze? =that with the catfem? =(one)ˉwithˉtheˉcat?

In line 3, Annette returns to the topic of German wines by informing Sybille that moselweine, and especially riesling (line 7) are highly popular in the US. She again conveys her evaluation of this type of wine as negative (line 4; previous assessment ommitted). After acknowledging the informational content of Annette’s turn in lines 3–5 with a nod (line 6), Sybille starts a response in line 8. The beginning of her response displays that she is treating and will deal with Annette’s turn (lines 3–5) as a genuine question rather than an assessment. In overlap (lines 9–10), both Sybille and Bernhard assess the wine in question as sweet using the non-evaluating, wine-specific term lieblich/“sweet”/“smooth”/“lovely” in contrast to Annette’s earlier süßlich/“sweetish”/“sticky”. No immediate uptake from either Annette or Sybille occurs in response to Bernhard’s assesment and elaboration (lines 10–14), and he reissues his assessment of Mosel wines in line 16. At this point, Annette selects to speak and, by informing Sybille and Bernhard of yet another German wine that is popular in the US, ties back to her talk in line 3–7. After Bernhard yields the floor, Annette continues her turn and produces a direct object (einen wein, line 17), the next item due to advance her TCU to possible syntactic completion. Since the beginning of her turn is uttered in overlap, there is a need for the speaker to recycle this talk once she emerges from overlap. Annette does exactly that by using a pivot construction to extend her turn-inprogress. The noun phrase EINEN wein (line 17), which exhibits strategies typically employed during turn competition (e.g., volume increase),41 is followed by a relative clause, a syntactically possible (and pragmatically necessary) continuation of the structure in progress. However, as soon as the verb gibt (line 18) is uttered, it becomes clear that Annette has in fact shifted to a syntactic construction that is not a continuation of, but a substitution for the prior one. The first element uttered in the clear and also the potentially last grammatical item in the overlapped structure now has to be reanalyzed as the starting point of this new construction.

.  See also Jefferson (1983a) on pitch/ volume as a device to manage overlap.



(3.8)

Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

OR4ˉweine,ˉpivotˉstructure,ˉmodifiedˉtranscript

[un dann ham se EI]NEN wein EI]NEN wein den es überall gibt=das is lieb〈frauenm↓ilch〉 [un dann ham se EI]NEN wein den es überall gibt=das is lieb〈frauenm↓ilch〉 | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | [andˉthenˉtheyˉhaveˉa]ˉwineˉthatˉisˉeverywhere42=that’s lieb〈frauenm↓ilch〉

The element EINEN wein (line 17) is shared by two linear structures in the following way: In the first structure (pre-pivot + pivot), EINEN wein is the direct object following the verb ham and the subject se; it possibly syntactically completes this structure. In the second structure it has the same function (the article EINEN is marked for accusative case), but this construction is not brought to completion. It is abandoned after gibt (line 18). A possible continuation would require the verb of the main clause to be uttered after the inserted dependent clause: “Einen Wein, den es überall gibt, hab ich gestern gekauft.”/“A wine that is everywhere have I bought yesterday” (constructed example). Moreover, this verb cannot be the copula sein, since the copula connects two nominative positions. Annette seems to be trying to reach the name of a specific (type of) wine, liebfrauenmilch, and she cannot get to this identification within the structure-in-progress. Thus, the pivot construction she uses leads her into a syntactic “dead end” and forces her to perform a repair to complete the turn. She abandons the structure-in-progress and starts a new sentence with the resumptive demonstrative das (line 18). In this data example, the speaker successfully uses a pivot construction to keep the floor across a possible transition point. Structurally, the speaker is not mirroring the overlapped talk but uses a different syntactic construction after the overlap. Se haben/“they have” and es gibt/“there is,” however, are both impersonal constructions used to express roughly the same meaning. The pivot element thus connects two structures that are syntactically different, but correspond semantically and pragmatically. Before briefly summarizing my findings for the pivot constructions discussed in this chapter, I want to draw attention to the importance of semantics for the identification of pivot constructions in interaction. I have already highlighted the importance of prosody for defining syntactic pivot constructions. The interpretation

.  This utterance can not be interpreted as a single sentence containing a relative clause. The features that block such an interpretation lie in the semantics of the verb phrases. See Chapter 2, segment (2.18).

 Pivots in German Conversation

of a structure as a pivot construction, however, must also be semantically possible to be heard as such. Consider a stretch of talk in the present example: lines 13–16. Bernhard’s talk in line 14, while syntactically possibly complete after rheinhessen, is not marked as prosodically complete. In line 16, he produces more talk. This talk could constitute a syntactic continuation of line 14, thereby rendering lines 13–16 a pivot construction: (3.9) OR4ˉweine,ˉexcerpt,ˉsimplified B:ˉ der mosel is ja viel leichter als der rheingauer oder mosel as you know is much lighter than rheingauer or der rheinhessen .hhhh is en leichter WEIN, rheinhessen .hhh is a light WINE,-

In this example, however, semantics and real-world knowledge about the wines in question blocks such an analysis: is en leichter WEIN refers back to der mosel/“(the) mosel (wine)” rather than to the immediately prior NP der rheinhessen/“(the) rheinhessen (wine)” across a filled pause (the point here being that Mosel wines, not Rheingauer or Rheinhessen wines are light). Thus, this utterance does not constitute a syntactic pivot construction, but rather consists of two TCUs, the second a verb-first construction (see Chapter 2). The deciding factor is semantics. For the use of pivots in the examples discussed so far, we can note the following: Pivots are devices that accomplish a smooth transition from one syntactic construction to another. They occur in post-overlap environments, where, by way of their syntactic properties, they serve to recycle talk that might not have been properly attended to. Pivots employed in this specific environment occur in both telephone conversations and face-to-face interactions and exhibit a circular, or “mirror-image,” structure, both syntactically and with respect to the information content of pre-pivot + pivot vs. pivot + post-pivot. Thus, the two structures generally carry out the same action. Since pivot constructions offer a technique to hold the floor by eliminating a possible speaker transition point, they present an alternative to recycled turn beginnings as described by Schegloff (1987c). In addition to recycling talk that was impaired by overlap, pivot constructions may also be used to recycle talk that could be termed “impaired” due to other circumstances in which the talk was delivered. This seems to be the case for the next example, in which a pivot construction is used in a post-overlap environment. Here, the shift in construction can be shown to coincide with a shift in recipiency. Gabi and Anna, who used to be neighbors, are talking about Maimaun/“Aunt Maria,” Anna’s aunt, who used to criticize her son, Anna’s cousin, for his drinking habits (not in transcript). Back when the whole family was still living in the same town, this was a common source of tensions. In lines 1–2 of segment (3.9), Gabi



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

accuses Maimaun of being biased in criticizing her son but not her husband, who was also commonly known to be a heavy drinker. Gabi thereby provides a candidate understanding of Maimaun’s role in the situation Anna has just depicted and she accuses the non-present party. (3.10)

OR7ˉdrinkingˉ[av1/2_4_19: 10]



*G: gaze down, A: gaze up+shrugˉandˉdismissiveˉhandˉgest.ˉonˉtable **G:ˉgazeˉshiftˉtoˉA

***A:ˉgazeˉtoˉG

1 G:ˉ *chia.=[uch d**ENJ ] MA:ˉImaun hot dot ***nie(t)= *yes.=ˉ[and y**OUR ] auntˉMARI:A did that ***no(t)= *yes.=ˉ[and y**OUR ] auntˉMARI:A didn’tˉsee:ˉthat.=ˉ [ ] 2 A:ˉ [uch da sien-] [and they are- ]

3 G:ˉ =gesa:n.=iar mun hot chia uch gedrianken. =see:.=her husband did prt also drink. =(because)ˉherˉhusbandˉalsoˉdrank.

((linesˉ1–3:ˉGˉshakesˉheadˉcontinuously,ˉstartingˉatˉMA:Imaun))

*ˉ.....gazeˉshiftˉawayˉfromˉG



*(we:ll)=



*...........pointsˉwithˉwholeˉarmˉtowardˉA

4 A:ˉ *na:ja= *prt:=

5 G:ˉ =*denjˉi:m.= =*yourˉuncle.=

6 A:ˉ =(no:: >se wu(o)let >chia nau niet hun<<) =(prt:: >she wanted+it >prt prt not have<<) =((we:ll)ˉ>sheˉdidn’tˉwantˉ>(toˉhearˉabout)ˉit<< 7

=[>(no en danj)< ] =[>(prt an issue)< ]

→ 8 G:ˉ

[ [ˉ>no nau [ˉ>prt prt [ˉ>prt prt

] *(A:ˉgazeˉtoˉG)ˉ.......... ien]tz< wot spr*ä:chtse nau ienster,hh no]w< what s*a:ysshe prt now,hh no]w< whatˉdoesˉsheˉsa:yˉprtˉnow,hh43

((lineˉ8:ˉsomewhatˉforced,ˉaccusatoryˉsoundingˉproduction)) 9 A:ˉ ºnoº sai drantj uch ºprtº she drinks too ºprtºˉsheˉdrinksˉasˉwell

10

(0.3)

.  I deviate in this translation (in the idiomatic gloss) from the original in that I try to use stress to convey the pivot in English.

 Pivots in German Conversation

*(GˉshiftsˉgazeˉawayˉfromˉA,ˉunbelievingˉfacialˉexpression)

11 A:ˉ °sa *drantj ja ienst uch° °she *drinks prt now too° °she *drinks prt as wellˉnow°

12

(0.3)ˉ((A:ˉgazeˉawayˉfromˉG,,ˉG:ˉgazeˉshiftˉbackˉtoˉA))

13 A:ˉ [((2syll)) ] [ ] 14 G:ˉ [ach >es]i,<



15



[oh >s]o,< [ohˉ>isˉth]atˉtrue,< (0.3)ˉ((AˉshiftsˉgazeˉtoˉG)) *(mutualˉgaze)

16 A:ˉ *AH? *HUH?

17 G:ˉ esi. so.



really.

18 A:ˉ ä:↓ä.ˉ((affirmative:ˉnodsˉtwice))ˉ((thenˉboth:ˉgazeˉshiftˉaway)) uh↓huh.

19



20 G:ˉ >mtsk!<



21



(0.4) (1.1) *G:ˉgazeˉshiftˉtoˉA

22 A:ˉ no:↑trä, *(.) >°tä kuste chia niastmi prt↑then, *(.) >°then canyou prt nothinganymore we:ll↑then,ˉ*(.)ˉ>°there’sˉnothingˉyouˉcanˉsay 23

spre[che°< s[ay°< any[more°< [ 24 A:ˉ [enträ (enj) ... [(and)then (always) ...ˉ

The information Gabi uses in her accusation in lines 1–2 lies in Anna’s domain of knowledge, as it is a member of Anna’s extended family that is targeted. The reference form used further evidences this, dENJ MA:Imaun (line 1) in combination with a gaze shift to the recipient Anna at the beginning of the person reference. Anna’s confirmation or disconfirmation (acceptance or rejection) of Gabi’s assessment of the family situation is relevant next. This is not immediately forthcoming, and after a further attempt by Gabi to elicit a response from Anna (line 5), Anna provides her view of the situation, which constitutes a modest defense of her aunt (lines 6–7). In overlap with the end of Anna’s turn, Gabi self-selects to inquire



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

about the most recent developments in this matter (line 8), thereby continuing her pursuit of a clear alignment by Anna with her position on Maimaun’s behavior. Gabi’s turn in line 8, the focus of this analysis, is structured as follows: After emerging from overlap with Anna, Gabi continues her turn. No pause, cut-off, or other prosodic break occurs that suggests that wot/“what” constitutes the beginning of a new TCU. In Siebenbürger Sächsisch, as in English, a wh-question may take additional elements (other than conjunctions) before the question word, that is, it may have a filled, prosodically integrated pre-front-field (Eisenberg 1989: 411–2).44 The use of ientz over its lexical variant ienster also marks this syntactic place as nonTCU-final (see note below). The pronoun (wot/“what”), therefore, is a syntactically possible next element in the linear progression of the turn. Gabi’s turn reaches a possible syntactic and pragmatic, but not prosodic, completion with sprä:chtse (line 8). No falling/rising intonation (both are possible here) occurs at the end of sprä:chtse. In a wh-questions with a simple verb in German, the (possible) syntactic completion and thus the end of such a TCU is less clearly projectable than in sentences which exhibits a sentence brace structure and thus strong righthand syntactic closure (see Chapter 2, this volume, and Auer 1991, 1996a; Eisenberg 1989). In the former, the verb-subject complex can be followed by syntactically integrated additional elements (adverbs, particles, or prepositional phrases).45 In segment (3.10) drinking, Gabi continues her turn by adding a particle and an adverb of time after the subject (nau ienster). These elements do not advance the turn in progress by adding new information, but instead reissue previous overlapped elements (nau ientz), thus rendering the turn a pivot construction with the following structure: (3.11)

OR7ˉdrinking,ˉpivotˉstructure

[>no nau ien]tz< wot sprä:chtse wot sprä:chtse nau ienster,hh

[>no nau ien]tz< wot sprä:chtse nau ienster,hh pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | (so)ˉnowˉwhatˉdoesˉsheˉsayˉnow?ˉhh

|

.  This specific type of prosodically integrated fronting does not seem available to speakers of Colloquial Standard German in my corpus. Other types of pre-front field filling available in Siebenbürger Sächsich but not Colloquial Standard German include negation particles that precede the inflected verb in (verb-first) imperatives, as in niet moch dot/“not do that”/“don’t do that” (cf. Holzträger 1912: 504–507). For a critical discussion of the typological pre-front field in German, see Altmann (1981), Auer (1996b, 1997), Ortner (1983), P. Schröder (2006), Selting (1993), Scheutz (1997) and Thim-Mabrey (1988). .  On the connection between strong syntactic closure and TCU continuation types crosslinguistically, see Couper-Kuhlen and Ono (2007).

 Pivots in German Conversation

As in the previous examples, the pivot element (wot sprä:chtse) is part of two possible syntactic structures. It is the last element of ientz wot sprä:chtse or the first element of wot sprä:chtse nau ienster. It should be noted here that ientz and ienster are lexical variants; both mean “now,” but seem to be position-sensitive in their deployment. A preliminary analysis suggests that by using ientz the speaker marks this element as non-final, while ienster is marked as a TCU/turn-final element.46 While both the particle nau and the adverb ientz are recycled in post-pivot position in this turn, no, which occurs in turn-initial place, is not. It seems thus that in pivot constructions in which the pre-pivot and post-pivot structures are lexically similar or identical, the repeating and “dropping” of elements follows interactional contingencies. Rather than being a matter of “optionality” (i.e., “optional” elements such as particles being dropped in the transition from pre-pivot to postpivot, Scheutz 1992, 2005), this process seems to follow rules of “dispensability” (Schegloff 2004): Elements with a function tied intimately to placement tend not to be recycled in the pivot+post-pivot structure (for example, turn-initial elements that serve to tie the turn to the previous talk.47 The interactional function to which the pivot is deployed in the present example is to extend the turn in progress beyond a possible point of completion. This may be motivated locally by issues arising from overlap or gaze orientation. After the occurrence of overlap, the speaker sees the need to extend her turn and thus to recover information that was possibly impaired, in this case the advp nau ienster. Pivots thus constitutes an alternative to recycled turn beginnings (i.e., break-off and restart) and their use is connected to issues of proper delivery, as described in the previous examples (3.3), (3.7), (3.10). Gaze orientation serves as an indicator of participation status. Non-speaking parties to talk have obligations as co-participants, which include attending “properly” to talk that is being delivered.48 In the example at hand, Anna’s gaze is not on her co-participant Gabi .  Seven occurrences of this adverb were analyzed, five instances of ientz and two instances of ienster. The former, one-syllable, variant occurs in unstressed, non-final positions in the TCU, whereas the two-syllable variant occurs in TCU- and turn-final position. This patterning is observable for other adverbs in Siebenbürger Sächsisch as well. .  See (3.3) tennisfee (turn-initial ja in line 15) for another example of this phenomenon. The example at hand provides instances of so-termed “optional” (Scheutz 1992) elements (a particle) being recycled. The particle ja has describable interactional functions; for example, it marks a speaker’s epistemic certainty or it indicates that knowledge is understood as shared (Möllering 2001). .  See Goodwin (1981) on the use of “phrasal breaks” to establish mutual gaze and Egbert (1996) on the connection between gaze orientation and repair initiation. Note that these findings



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

while Gabi is speaking (line 8; Anna had averted her gaze in line 4). At the beginning of Gabi’s turn, Anna is still speaking, and a few moments after Gabi emerges from overlap as the sole speaker, Anna shifts her gaze to her. After mutual gaze, and thus proper speakership and recipiency are established, Gabi recycles most of the talk she had produced in the absence of mutual gaze and all of the talk produced in overlap. Thus, it may well be that the practice of employing a pivot construction in German to extend one’s turn may in contexts such as the ones above be connected to a pervasive orientation of speakers to produce talk that is properly attended to (compare also the development of gaze orientation between Sybille and Annette in (3.7) wein, line 18). I am not arguing that pivots provide an alternative to phrasal breaks as a strategy to claim recipient’s gaze and thus establish a common orientation (C. Goodwin 1981). Instead, I argue that pivot constructions may provide a resource to reissue talk that was not clearly attended to once a mutual orientation (e.g., gaze) is established, that is, to a now properly attending recipient. The aspect of gaze in connection with the syntactic restructuring that is observable in this example thus provides further evidence that speakers indeed orient to producing sequences that are attended to properly by their co-participants. 3.2.2.3  The relevance of gaze in structuring talk-in-interaction In the previous section, I suggested that in addition to recycling talk that was impaired by overlap, pivot construction may also serve to recycle talk that could be termed “impaired” due to other circumstances of delivery. In this section, I will discuss in detail a stretch of interaction that does not involve simultaneous talk. However, the use of a pivot construction in example (3.12) computer is connected to establishing proper recipiency, as evidenced in the participants’ non-verbal conduct. While in segment (3.10) drinking, which involved overlap, the use of a pivot was in the service of reissuing information to the same recipient (a formerly not and now attending one) in a dyadic interaction, in the following example, a pivot is used to reissue information for the main recipient in a group of four interactants. The syntactic shift here coincides with a shift from addressing no recipient in particular to addressing a now again attending main recipient. Segment (3.12) computer is taken from a conversation between two couples that got together for an evening of card playing (Doppelkopf is the name of the card

on mutual gaze are culture-bound (Rossano 2007, 2008; in press) and seem to also be activitybound (Mondada 2008; Rossano 2006).

 Pivots in German Conversation

game). Bernhard and Sibylle are the hosts. Figure 3.1 schematically depicts how the participants are seated around a table on the hosts’ patio:

H o u s e

S

I

X

B

Camera Figure 3.1  Doppelkopfabend: seating of participants around the table and location of camera.

Bernhard has just initiated a new topic (line 1) by announcing that he recently needed help with his computer. His computer is a source of recurrent trouble, as becomes apparent later in the conversation. (3.12)

computerˉ[av_DK_20.06]

1 B:ˉ wir ham den 〈GANzen computer heute neu gemacht〉= we have the 〈WHOle computer today new made〉= we redid/reconfiguredˉtheˉ〈WHOleˉcomputerˉtoday〉=



*tiltsˉheadˉtowardsˉhouse*

ˉ2 F:ˉ =warum.=hat er dir geh*olfen.* =why(howˉso).=has he you h*elped.* =howˉso.=didˉheˉ*helpˉyou.



ˉ3

(0.3)



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

4 B:ˉ des hat ja nich funktioniert. du konnst ja nichts that has prt not worked. you couldn’t prt nothing thatˉdidˉnotˉworkˉ(asˉyouˉknow).ˉyouˉcouldn’tˉprt

5



speichern in dem fl- u- ich konnt ... save in the fl- u- I could ... saveˉanythingˉinˉtheˉfl-ˉu-ˉIˉcouldˉ...

((38ˉsec.ˉomitted))

 *B: gaze slightlyˉdownˉinˉfrontˉofˉhimˉ(gazeˉatˉtable?).........  *SˉcutsˉdeckˉthatˉFˉhasˉplacedˉinˉfrontˉofˉher;ˉXˉandˉSˉgazeˉat deck..

6 B:ˉ *.hhh und dann hat er gesagt,=dann: muss: er alles *.hhh and then has he said,=then: mus:t he everything *.hhhˉandˉthenˉheˉsaid,=then:ˉheˉha:sˉto 7



.................. neu formatieren.= newly format.= reformatˉeverything.=



BˉgazesˉatˉI B:ˉhead+gazeˉshiftˉtoˉF S and F: deck switches hands  F pulls deck to himself, shifts gaze to B

__| __ ____|____ ............. …* | | | | *F,ˉB:ˉmutualˉgaze → 8 B:ˉ =da hat er mir* (0.4) per ffax *>hat er mir< =so has he me* (0.4) by ffax *>has he me< =so he (sent)49ˉme*(0.4)ˉbyˉffaxˉ*>heˉfaxedˉme<

→ 9



.hhhhh ((≈0.4)) ins büro die anweisungen gefaxt wie .hhhhh ((≈0.4)) to+the office the instruction faxed how .hhhhh ((≈0.4)) the instruction to the office how



Fˉnods

_|_ *Fˉstartsˉdealingˉcards 10 des geht, (0.2) *und dann ham wer* **hier hat** davie to do that, (0.2) *and then have we* **here has** ((name)) to do that, (0.2) *and then we did* **here davie** did

.  Elements in parentheses are not in the original transcript. They were added in an attempt to render the German structure. In German, the PP per fax would precede the ppt projected by the modal hat because of the rules of the sentence brace (cf. Chapter 2). That is, normal word order would be “he has me by fax sent.” In English, however, the verb has to precede the PP, which makes it difficult to convey the pivot structure in the idiomatic translation.

 Pivots in German Conversation

B:ˉquickˉgazeˉatˉF,ˉwhoˉhasˉbegunˉdealing;ˉgazeˉshiftˉtoˉI

_________|_________ | | na ha- vorhin (0.2) den ganz[en compu- ALLES GELÖSCHT. prt ha- earlier (0.2) the who[le compu- EVERYTHING  DELETED. prt di- earlier (0.2) DELETED[the whole compu EVERYTHING. [ 12 S:ˉ [undˉdesˉwarˉalles [andˉthatˉwasˉall 11

13 F:ˉ ach das ja schön= oh that(’s) prt nice= oh that’s prt nice=

14 S:ˉ ((looksˉatˉI)) und des war alles auf deutsch ne, and that was all in German right,

After detailing his computer problems, which even his computer-savvy son-in-law – Davie (line 10, also the person referred to as er by Freddie in line 2) – could not help him fix, Bernhard retells (omitted from transcript) how a support person was contacted, who instructed daughter and son-in-law over the phone on how to solve the problem. This first attempt at locating Bernhard’s computer problems, however, fails. As a next step, the support person faxes Bernhard step-by-step instructions for reformatting his computer (line 7). In delivering the last part of his chronological telling (lines 8–11), Bernhard performs a shift from one recipient (Inge, seated to his left) to another (Freddie, seated to his right) over the course of one TCU. Minutely synchronized with this recipient shift is a shift in syntactic structure, that is, Bernhard constructs his turn to accommodate the shift in participation structure syntactically. Freddie, who is the recipient of Bernhard’s story, begins shuffling a deck of cards while Bernhard’s telling is still ongoing (not in transcript). He then offers the deck to Sibylle, seated to his right (cf. Figure 3.1), to cut it. Freddie’s shift in focus from his interaction with Bernhard to the action of having Sibylle cut the deck is followed by a gaze shift by Bernhard, who, while continuing his telling, follows Freddie’s concurrent activity (see gaze movement in lines 6–8). In line 10, Freddie’s activity comes to a projectable end, with Sybille, during a pause in Bernhard’s talk, handing back the deck of cards to Freddie. As Bernhard continues his turn and shifts his gaze back to Freddie, Freddie pulls the cards across the table toward himself and picks them up, thus closing this activity (line 8). He then shifts his gaze (back) to Bernhard. Bernhard continues his TCU-in-progress with mutual gaze re-established between Freddie and Bernhard (and thus the telling



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

now again being the main focus for both main participants involved). Bernhard’s turn is reproduced in (3.13) for convenience. (3.13)

computer,ˉexcerpt,ˉsimplifiedˉ



*F,ˉB:ˉmutualˉgaze

8 B:ˉ =da hat er mir (0.4) per ffax *>hat er mir< =so has he me (0.4) by ffax >has he me< =so he (sent) me (0.4) by ffax >he faxed me< 9

.hhhhh ((≈0.4)) ins büro die anweisungen gefaxt wie .hhhhh ((≈0.4)) to+the office the instruction faxed how .hhhhhˉ((≈0.4))ˉtheˉinstructionˉtoˉtheˉofficeˉhow

At the point of re-established gaze between Freddie and Bernhard, the next element due (and thus projectable) in the syntactic progression of Bernhard’s turn is a direct object, followed by a past participle as the second part of the verbal expression.50 However, the next item that Bernhard actually produces is another finite verb, the already produced auxiliary hat (line 8). This makes necessary a reanalysis of the PP per ffax, previously analyzable as a continuation of da hat er mir, now (also) the first element of a new construction (per ffax hat er mir). This new structure is, once it becomes recognizable as such and the original projection is cancelled, already well underway. After repeating all elements uttered before per ffax,51 Bernhard continues his turn to a next possible transition point, at which Freddie produces a non-verbal response (a nod, line 10). This marks continued attention and hands the turn back to Bernhard, who then closes his telling by returning to its beginning (cf. lines 1 and 10–11).52 The beginning of Bernhard’s turn in lines 8–11, the focus of analysis here, exhibits the following overall structure: (3.14)

computer,ˉpivotˉstructure,ˉsimplifiedˉtranscript

da hat er mir (0.4) per ffax ((synt.ˉincomplete, projects

obj+ppt))

per ffax >hat er mir< (ˉ) die anweisungen gefaxt

.  This participle is strongly projected to be the verb for “to send” (“schicken” or “senden” > “geschickt” or “gesandt/gesendet”) by (1) the PP per fax, (2) the auxiliary hat, and (3) the dative object mir/“to me”. .  This only element not repeated is the particle da, which functions as a connector to the previous TCU and marks the next step in the chronological progression of the telling (see also Schegloff, 2004 on dropping turn-initial discourse markers in resayings in English). .  Freddie seems to be projecting the imminent closing of the story: He starts to deal the cards (line 10).

 Pivots in German Conversation BˉgazesˉatˉI B:ˉhead+gazeˉshiftˉtoˉF

SˉandˉF:ˉdeckˉswitchesˉhands  F pulls deck to himself, shifts gaze to B



___|__ ___|____ | | | *F,ˉB:ˉmutualˉgaze da hat er mir* (0.4) per ffax *>hat er mir< ( ) die so has he me* (0.4) by ffax *>has he me< (ˉ) the anweisungengefaxt instruction faxed | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | so he (sent) me*(0.4) by ffax *>he faxed me< (ˉ) the instructions

Bˉgazingˉdownˉ...* |







Rather than interpreting the transition between da hat er mir and per ffax as a cut-off and restart to facilitate the insertion of an additional element (per ffax) (see Schegloff 1979), the analysis of the participant’s non-verbal conduct suggests that the linear syntactic structuring and restructuring of Bernhard’s turn is connected to the status of the main co-participant (Freddie) as recipient of the story told. When Bernhard approaches the climax of his story (lines 6–7), Freddie’s gaze is not on Bernhard; his attention is on the bodily action of preparing for the next round of the card game. As the completion of Freddie’s action becomes projectable (line 8), Bernhard pauses and – concurrently with Freddie’s closure of the bodily action unit and return of his attention to Bernhard’s story (line 8) – shifts his gaze back to Freddie to utter the (pivot) element per ffax. With mutual gaze reestablished, Bernhard reissues those elements of his ongoing TCU that were uttered to no addressee in particular,53 using the pivot element as a connection between the two different circumstances of delivery. He then advances the TCU to its syntactically projected possible completion point (the participle gefaxt, line 9, which constitutes the right boundary of the sentence brace).54 It is interesting to note that the verb Bernhard produces is not, as was projectable, geschickt or gesandt/gesendet/“sent”, but gefaxt/“faxed”, which reissues the information expressed in per ffax (“he sent it via fax” vs. “he faxed it”). This further evidences that Bernhard is indeed orienting to producing the complete information to Freddie as a properly attending recipient, i.e., while mutual eye-gaze is established (this was not yet the case when per ffax was uttered). Similar to the previous examples, the pivot in segment (3.12) computer is used to recycle information that was possibly impaired – in data samples (3.3), (3.5), (3.7), and (3.10) due to overlap, in this example (and arguably also in (3.10) drinking) due to the lack of the main recipient’s eye gaze – and thus to reissue it to a

.  While Freddie was attending to other business, however, Bernhard’s gaze movement suggests that he is closely monitoring the status of Freddie as incipient proper recipient. .  Bernhard then further extends this TCU by effectively replacing the object NP die anweisungen/ “the instructions” with the subordinate clause wie des geht/“how that works” (lines 9–10).



Chapter 3.  Managing overlap 

now properly attending recipient. Gaze orientation is crucial here: Freddie’s gaze serves as an indicator of where his focus of attention currently lies (he is engaged in a variety of competing activities). Hence, close attention to Freddie’s gaze and upcoming shifts in attention guide Bernhard’s structuring (and restructuring) of his talk, resulting in an extended TCU – a pivot construction.

3.3  Discussion The use of pivot constructions in the service of negotiating speakership and recipiency evidences the following context-free features of syntactic pivots in German: 1. Pivot constructions constitute specific kinds of TCUs (cf. Selting 1998a, 1998b). 2. They draw on language-specific syntactic properties (notably word order rules) to merge two potentially independent syntactic structures by way of a shared element. 3. They are a strategy to extend a turn-in-progress and are employed by speakers in face-to-face and telephone interactions to accomplish local interactional goals. The following context-specific features can be noted: 1.  Pivot constructions occur in environments in which speakers see the need to recycle information that was possibly impaired, notably post-overlap. This specific function has not previously been described for German or English, but was noted for Swedish (Norén 2003b). In this function, pivots seem to constitute an alternative to recycled turn beginnings (Schegloff 1987c, 1998, 2000). 2.  Structurally, the examples I discussed in this chapter exhibit the following characteristics: Pre-pivot+pivot may be syntactically complete or incomplete, but they are always prosodically incomplete. The types of pivot constructions used in this environment include mirror-image (e.g., segments (3.3), (3.10)), modified mirror-image (e.g., segment (3.8)), and modified constructions (e.g., segment (3.5)). In constructions in which the two structures are similar in content and action, elements may be dropped or added in the transition from pre-pivot to postpivot. This is interactionally meaningful and follows sequential contingencies. 3.  Pivot constructions that occur in face-to-face interaction illustrate the complex and precise coordination of talk and eye-gaze. They evidence that talk and gaze elaborate each other and that speakers utilize gaze orientation to understand a co-participant’s actions. Moreover, the examples discussed in this chapter show

 Pivots in German Conversation

that speakers understand changes in participation structures through gaze, and this informs and shapes their own verbal conduct. Thus, examining the form and function of pivot constructions in spontaneous conversations has implications for the study of grammar in spoken interaction; that is, for the description of the regularities of talk that we commonly understand as “grammar” and their emergence in discourse contexts in response to communicative needs. Pivot constructions are a context-free resource for extending a turn-in-progress beyond a possible point of syntactic and pragmatic (and in some cases, prosodic) completion. They are highly orderly in their formal structure and systematic in their specific contexts of use. In this chapter, I outlined the use of pivots as a resource for turn-taking, to manage the distribution of speakership and recipiency in situations of speakership competition and to deal with the absence of proper recipiency. Here, pivots are used to negotiate shifts in participation structure. In Chapter 4, I discuss pivots as a resource to structure larger discourse units: I describe environments in which pivots serve to systematically control (or redirect) a course of action. Here, pivots are used to bridge shifts in sequence structure and topic development.

chapter 4

Pivots at sequential and topic boundaries Steering the emerging direction of the talk 4.1  Introduction Pivot constructions are used in various sequential environments in which a speaker sees the need to extend a turn in progress beyond a point of possible completion. The previous chapter provided a discussion of one specific function: retrieving overlapped or otherwise disattended talk. Here, it is a pivot’s property of extending a turn in a syntactic, yet unprojected, way that can be employed by speakers to negotiate speakership and deal with the result of overlap. The property of allowing a speaker to continue a turn by adding unprojected items, however, is not the sole defining aspect of pivots. In a pivot construction, it is two potentially independent units that are merged; hence, the transition from a first construction to a second within a pivot TCU involves a syntactic transition but may also involve a transition between different actions, for example, a transition from responding to a previous action (a backward-looking move) to initiating a new sequence (a forward-looking move). Pivots are therefore uniquely suited to bridge sequential junctures, i.e., to manage interactional places where transitions between sequences, actions, and topics take place. For example, by way of merging an action that connects an utterance to the previous talk with a move that launches into a multi-unit telling, a pivot construction can be used to steer the direction of the ongoing topic at the beginning of a story-telling. In Chapter 3, I discussed an example of a pivot construction that is deployed to manage overlap. The example is reproduced here for convenience. I will show that, in the specific context in which it is used, this pivot construction may serve an additional interactional function. The pivot is used in a situation in which the talk launched by Xaver in overlap with the current speaker Markus constitutes a conflicting action: While Markus launches a new topic in line 5, Xaver proposes a closing with alles klar/“alright (then)” in line 6.

 Pivots in German Conversation

(4.1) bessa [seeˉsegmentˉ(3.5)],ˉmodified,ˉpivotˉconstructionˉhighlighted ˉ1 M:ˉ ma(n)- mal schau:n: ne? ˉ prt- prt see:ˉ prt? ˉ we’ll- we’ll see: okay? ˉ

2

(0.5)

3 X:ˉ 〈o:kee〉= 〈o:kay〉= ˉ

4 M:ˉ =okee. =okay. ˉ

→ˉ 5 M:ˉ so.wie ge[hts denn (dem) raffa>e ]l gehts wieda= ˉ so.how go[es+it prt (for+the) ((name)) ] goes+it again= ˉ so. how[‘s prt raffa>e]l isˉbetter again= ˉ [ ] ˉ 6 X:ˉ [〈alles kla:r〉] ˉ [〈all clear〉] [〈allright (then)〉 ] → 7 M:ˉ =bessa. =ne, =better. =prt, =right, ˉ

8

(0.9)

ˉ 9 X:ˉ raffael is fit dra:uf. (.) sieht gutˉa::us ((name)) is in good shape. (.) looks good ˉ raffael is in good shape. (.) isˉlooking good

10 X: .hhhh

11 X: ä=obwohl ich ja hier im augnblick (.) ziemlich viel uh=although I prt here at+the moment (.) rather much uh=although I am (it’s me who is)ˉatˉtheˉmomentˉquite ˉ



ˉ12















*slurredˉspeech*

erfolg habe; so:=äh eh *bei den frauen.* success have; like:=uh uh *with the women.* popular; like:ˉ=uhˉuhˉ*withˉtheˉladies.*

In the face of the launching of a competing action, the pivot speaker uses a pivot construction to extend his turn-in-progress. He extends his turn beyond the coparticipant’s and  – in particular through the use of the turn-final tag  – makes a response from his addressee relevant (Harren 2001). As a result, the speaker not only secures an “on topic” response to his topic initiating move, but in fact sequentially deletes the competing (closing-initiating) action. Thus, as further data segments in this chapter will demonstrate, syntactic pivot constructions can be employed to bridge sequential and topical shifts. All examples in my collection occur in the environment of topic initiations or topic closings. Their placement



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

within a given turn and within the larger sequence depends on the type and placement of the competing action and on the interactional impact these competing actions may have for the unfolding sequence. The first section (4.2.) provides data that illustrate the use of pivots to deal with competing actions at topic initiations. This includes competing actions launched by the speaker herself or by a co-participant in overlap or partial overlap. Section 4.2.1 illustrates the latter. Unlike the sorts of constructions discussed in Chapter 3, the pivots presented in this chapter are not used to recover and reissue overlapped information and thus to deal with “incidental” simultaneous talk. Instead, they are used to resume an action that was interrupted. Thus, the pivots described in section 4.2.1 bridge stretches of interaction where the continuation of the topic or action pursued by the current speaker is jeopardized by the simultaneous launch of a competing action. Section 4.2.2 exemplifies pivot construction used to re-enter or properly launch a story-telling that had been put on hold by a side sequence, thus resuming a self-interrupted action. Section 4.3 provides examples of pivot constructions used in the environment of closings. As in section 4.2, I will start out by showcasing how speakers resume an action after competitive overlap (4.3.1). I will then discuss syntactic pivot constructions employed to extend a sequence or action in progress beyond a point at which its closure was made relevant (4.3.2). The function of this practice is to control the development of the topic. Throughout the chapter, it will become apparent that the places at which pivots are employed are often not only points of sequential and topical transition, but also places where speakers navigate delicate interactional issues (epistemic authority, professional status, face). All examples discussed in this chapter display the following characteristics: 1. They occur at a crucial juncture in the sequential or topical development of the talk (beginnings and ends of larger sequences of action, such as storytellings or reports). Here, different action trajectories emerge. 2. They are used to control the direction of the talk (and thus the topic) in the face of the launch of a competing (derailing, diverging, or anticipatory) action (4.2, 4.3.1) or the emergence of a different action as sequentially relevant (4.3.2). 3. The pivot turn constitutes a type of resumptive (continuative) or reopening move. 4. In terms of structural features, the pivot TCU tends to display its connection to previous talk (by, e.g., a responsive move marking the turn as a continuation of a prior turn) in the first structural part (pre-pivot+pivot) and launches a more substantive move (a first, e.g., an announcement as a launch into a story-telling) in the second (pivot+post-pivot).

 Pivots in German Conversation

The data for this chapter come from a collection of 16 examples of pivot constructions used to manage sequence and topic transitions. 10 of these examples stem from Colloquial Standard German conversations (4 face-to-face, 6 telephone) and 6 from interactions in Siebenbürger Sächsisch (5 face-to-face, 1 telephone).

4.2  Managing competing actions at topic initiation 4.2.1  Resumption after competitive overlap and interruption In the environments of topical and sequential transition, pivot constructions are used primarily to deal with an intervening action that may endanger the trajectory of the action in progress. The examples in this section showcase the following structure: Simultaneously with the current speaker, a second speaker starts up in overlap. One of the speakers, overwhelmingly the first speaker, drops out before completing his current turn. The trajectory of the action launched by the second speaker in overlap differs from the trajectory of the action that was already underway (e.g., closing vs. new topic, continuation of telling vs. launching a diverging joke sequence). At the point at which the second speaker’s turn comes to a possible completion, the first speaker reassumes speakership and produces a pivot construction. In this pivot turn, the speaker (1) marks the intervening action as an interruption55 or otherwise shows an orientation to it and (2) sequentially deletes the intervening action (cf. Lerner 1989:  171; Maynard 1980:  270). In the pivot turn, the speaker also resumes the previously abandoned talk, topic, or action trajectory.56 Figure 4.1 exemplifies this overall structure. A brief note on the sequential development of the preceding interaction: Markus just proposed a new topic, which received no uptake from Paula. He then proposes an entirely new topic (line 1). The example is discussed in detail as segment (4.5). The next two examples exemplify how speakers successfully use pivot constructions to get the talk “back on track” after competitive overlap. Segment (4.2) segeln occurs at the beginning of an elicited telling, (4.5) shakespeare at the beginning of a self-initiated telling. While in (4.2), the action underway is directly threatened by a competing action (i.e., topic closing vs. topic extension), the interactional motivation for the speaker in (4.5) is more intricate. For examples such as these in my collection, the following can be observed: Rather than fundamentally .  It should be noted here that “overlap” and “interruption” are two different concepts (Bilmes 1997; Schegloff 2002). An interruptively placed upstart occurs at a place that does not constitute a possible transition space. Such “misplaced” upstarts are relatively rare in conversation. .  For a similar practice, see Lerner (1989) on “delayed completion.”



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk  second speaker starts up in overlap; first speaker drops out

M = first speaker, P = second speaker Pivot construction marked by arrows (lines 1, 3) =>

1 2

=>

3

turn possibly complete; question

M: heut geh ich ins theater. .hhhh z[um] today go I to+the theater. .hhhh t[o+the-] [ ] [was ]gibts enn, P: [what ]gives+it PRT, [what ]’s playing, M:

.hä::h ä-äzum shakespearefestival fahrich h .hu::h uh-uh- to+the shakespeare festival drive+I h .h [*nach- ] .h [*to]

4 prior speaker reassumes speakership

resumes abandoned talk (‘zum’), thus continuing prior turn; produces pivot construction: heute geh ich zum s-festival fahr ich/ ‘today I’m going to the s-festival I’m driving’

Figure 4.1  Resumption after competitive overlap: schema (shakespeare).

endangering the current action, the competing move interferes with how a telling is to unfold, or the co-participant misjudges its relevance at the outset. Thus, the competing action may present the danger of derailing, diverging, or (wrongly) anticipating (an aspect of) the current action. Markus, currently a German exchange student in the US, has just explained to Xaver, a student in Germany, the challenges of wanting to both travel the country extensively and build relationships during his limited stay in the US. He closes this sequence with an expression of conventional wisdom (line 1), a common topic bounding technique (cf. Drew & Holt 1998; Schegloff & Sacks 1973). After a gap (line 2), Markus produces the token naja (line 3), thus again passing an opportunity to produce substantial talk (Golato 2006). In overlap with Markus’s n↑a: ja, Xaver initiates a new sequence and topic in line 4. Guido is a fellow student. (4.2) SB3ˉsegelnˉ(027_Ingo1B)

1 M: was sollste ↑machen. what should+you ↑do. whatˉcanˉyouˉ↑do.

2

(0.3)

3 M: [n↑a:ˉja. ] [↑prt. ]

 Pivots in German Conversation

[(ohˉwell.) ] [ ] 4 X: [aber mit ] Guido MACHse noch viel=den [but with ] ((NAME)) DO+you still much=him+dem [butˉwith ]ˉGuidoˉyouˉstillˉdoˉaˉlot=you 5

siehs↓te zwischendurch?= see↓him in+between?= seeˉ↓himˉeveryˉnowˉandˉthen?=

6 M: =Guido:,mmachen wer eigentlich ziemlich v- mach ich =((name)):,mmake we actually relatively m- do I =Guido:,ˉweˉactuallyˉdoˉquiteˉa-ˉIˉdo

→ 7

ziemlich viel.=ja.=ich w[a letzte-] relatively much.=yes=I w[asˉlast-ˉ] quite aˉlot.=yes.=I w[asˉlast-ˉ] [ ] 8 X: [ beste]ll dem mal schöne [ te]ll him+dem prt nice [ s]ay hello to him (for



9



grüße.= greetings.= me.)=

→ 10 M: =ja mach ich. ich ma(hh)=war letzte woche w:ar ich seg↑eln? =yes (will) do I. I d(hh)=was last week w:as I sail↑ing? =yesˉI’llˉdoˉthat.ˉIˉd(hh)=wasˉlastˉweekˉIˉw:entˉsail↑ing?

11

(0.4)

12 M:ˉ un[:d, an[:d,



an[:d,

ˉ [ 13 X:ˉ [echt? [really?



[really?

14 M:ˉ ä wa- mit ihm, der hat ja en segelschein gemacht, uh wa- with him, he+dem has prt a sailing licenceˉgotten, uhˉwa-ˉwithˉhim,ˉ(because)ˉheˉgotˉaˉsailingˉlicence, 15

(.) und ehm (0.7) ((Schmatzgeräusch)) das ham- da sind wer (.) and uhm (0.7) ((chewingˉnoises)) that hav- prt have we (.)ˉandˉuhmˉ(0.7) ((chewingˉnoises)) that hav- prt we

16

rausgefahren so in newport aufdn hafen, da sin da drove out prt in ((name)) to+the harbor, there are there drove out prt in newport toˉthe harbor, there are there







17 

Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk  stehn häuser, du das(s) (H) da f(h)allen dir die augen stand houses, you+sg that (H) there f(h)all you the eyes areˉhouses,ˉI’mˉtellingˉyouˉthat(H)ˉyourˉeyesˉ(would) fall outˉ(seeingˉthem)



18



*eachˉsyll.ˉcarefullyˉpronounced*

das sin das sind *villen* ja:? out >you+sg< that are that are *mansions* ye:s? >(man)<ˉthoseˉareˉthoseˉareˉ*mansions*ˉ(youˉunderstand)? aus >du<

19 X:ˉ >ja,< >yes,<



>yes,<

This new topic initiated by Xaver (lines 4–5) is designed as touched off by the previous topic: Xaver offers a candidate understanding of a past state of affairs for confirmation in light of what Markus has just revealed about his life (that he spends his free time traveling, not socializing). Xaver’s turn consists of two TCUs, both candidate understandings, with the second TCU a back down from the first (doing a lot with somebody vs. seeing somebody every now and then). As no response is forthcoming from Markus at the first possible completion point (after viel, line 4), the back down arguably serves to make Xaver’s statement more “agreeable” for Markus. That is, there is a chance that Markus indeed does not spend much time anymore with Guido (Bilmes 1988; Davidson 1984; Golato 2005; Pomerantz 1978, 1984). In line 6, Markus confirms Xaver’s understanding with a qualified repeat and the acknowledgment token ja (cf. Auer & Uhmann 1982; Golato 2005; Golato & Fagyal, 2008). Latched onto this token, the possible completion of his turn,57 Markus starts another TCU that serves to provide specific evidence for the claim just made (line 7). In overlap with Markus, Xaver launches a new sequence in line 8, a request to Markus to give his greetings to the person in question. This may occasion topic closing (Button 1987: 149; Button & Casey 1985) and, in being similar to arrangements, constitutes a move also typically found in conversation closings (Button 1990; Schegloff & Sacks 1973). Thus, while Markus has made a move to extend his turn and elaborate on the topic just proposed (his friendship with Guido) by talking about recent activities that involved Guido, Xaver proposes topic closure (and possibly prepares the ground for conversation closure). After Xaver’s turn has come to a possible completion, strongly making relevant a granting or denial of

.  Due to the constraints set by the first pair part – a candidate understanding that makes confirmation/disconfirmation relevant  – the sequence is not complete yet after the repeat. It seems that Markus’s turn is possibly complete only after the acknowledgment token (ja, line 7). Cf. Heritage and Raymond (2005).

 Pivots in German Conversation

the request formulated, Markus produces a minimal second pair part in line 10,58 which consists of an acknowledgment token (ja/“yes”) and a promise of future fulfillment of the request.59 In the same turn, Markus accomplishes a return to his previous, abandoned, action by (1) recycling the talk uttered in overlap, thus marking this move as a resumption of prior talk, and (2) continuing the previous talk beyond its cut-off point with the next item due, a projected feminine noun as the second part of the temporal adverbial expression letzte woche. Then, however, Markus continues his turn in a syntactically unprojected manner: Rather than uttering a predicate complement or prepositional phrase, he repeats of the verb war and the subject ich (cf. line 7), after which he completes the new sentence and TCU with segeln. (4.3)

SB3 segeln, modified transcript

7 M:ˉ ich w[a letzte-] I w[as last-ˉ ] ˉ ... 10 M:ˉ ich ma(hh)=war letzte woche w:ar ich seg↑eln? I d(hh)=was last week w:as I sail↑ing? Iˉd(hh)=wasˉlastˉweekˉIˉw:entˉsail↑ing?

The resulting structure is a syntactic pivot construction, in with the adverbial phrase letzte woche serves as the pivot element. Sample (4.4) represents this structural transition: (4.4)

SB3ˉsegeln,ˉpivotˉstructure

ich ma(hh)=war letzte woche letzte woche w:ar ich







seg↑eln?

ich ma(hh)=war letzte woche w:ar ich seg↑eln? I d(hh)=was last week w:as I sail↑ing? | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | I d(hh)=was last week I w:ent sail↑ing?

.  It seems that this request, since it takes the shape of an instruction rather than question, should minimally receive a promise of future action; an acknowledgment token is not sufficient here. On request sequences, see Schegloff (2007), Taleghani-Nikazm (2006), Davidson (1984). .  The beginning of the turn ich ma and its proximity as next to mach ich./“I’ll do that.” suggest that Markus is starting to produce a repetition or modification of his promise of future action. What seems to be the beginning of the inflected verb mach(e)/“do” is replaced by the inflected verb war/“was”, without an apparent cut-off. Instead, the repairable and the repair item seem fused together (hence they are transcribed as latched, see Appendix A).



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

Thus, in one extended turn constructional unit, Markus combines two separate syntactic structures; one is backward-looking in that it redoes a previous TCU that was left incomplete, and one is forward looking in that it is done as an announcement of news and projects further talk (cf. turn-final rising intonation). That the latter action is indeed seen by the co-participant as an announcement of news is evidenced by Xaver’s response in line 13. After a delay in uptake (Xaver is possibly making sense out of the sequential fit of Markus’s turn with the previous talk and working out how to respond appropriately), Xaver produces a news mark (Clayman 1998; Heritage 1984; Heritage & Greatbach 1991; Jefferson 1980; Maynard 1997) in overlap with Markus’s lengthened conjunction (line 12). Following Xaver’s news mark, Markus backtracks to provide additional information clarifying the connection between this announcement and the ongoing topic: mit ihm/“with him” (line 14), “him” being Guido. After this increment and a further insertion that provides background information, Markus continues with the turn in progress (und, line 15), the multi-unit telling projected and launched in lines 7 and 10. Data sample (4.2) segeln is similar to (4.1)/(3.5) bessa, in that the pivot construction is used at the boundary of topics and in the environment of a competing action being launched. In both (4.2) and (4.1), the action trajectories pursued by the speakers diverge, and a pivot is used to negotiate this boundary. By using a pivot construction this way, a speaker can extend his turn in progress to steer the development of the topic. However, while in (4.1), the pivot facilitates a speaker’s ability to emerge as the sole speaker and reissue information after overlap, the speaker in (4.2) drops out in overlap and then uses a pivot construction to return to the point where he abandoned his talk and to steer it “back on track.” In (4.1), the speaker effectively sequentially deletes the other speaker’s turn. In this example, the speaker yields in overlap, deals with the co-participant’s competing action, and then uses a pivot to return to the unfinished turn. Thus, I argue that in (4.1), the pivot is used primarily as a device to deal with overlap (to keep talking, to recycle talk after the end of overlap), while a pivot construction is employed here (and in the examples to follow) primarily to control the development of the topic (e.g., to resume or reopen an action that was left unfinished, overridden by a competing action, or put on hold by repair). The next data sample (4.5) provides another stretch of interaction in which a speaker sees the need to control the development of the topic. Again, the pivot is produced at the beginning of a new topic in an environment in which speakers negotiate the direction or structure of a telling. In this example, as in (4.2) segeln, the speakers manage a stretch of overlapped talk; one speaker drops out and, after dealing with the co-participant’s action, recycles the unfinished previous turn by using a pivot construction. Segments (4.2) and (4.5), however, differ

 Pivots in German Conversation

in how the co-participants” action is dealt with. In (4.2), the speaker produces a relevant second pair part before resuming his unfinished turn, thus treating the co-participant’s action as a parenthetical sequence of talk. Although the following example resembles (4.2) in that the speaker provides information that is hearable as an answer to the intervening question asked, the turn is not built as an answer to a question. It is built as a continuation of a prior (abandoned) turn and thus formally deletes the co-participant’s action. Hence, with respect to how the co-participant’s action is dealt with, (4.5) is closer to (4.1)/(3.5) bessa. Markus, a graduate student in the US, and his mother Paula, who lives in Germany, have been talking about items Paula bought in preparation for her son’s upcoming visit. She purchased two polo shirts for Markus, to which she refers in line 1 with se. The summary assessment and the token na ja in third position (Golato 2006) signal the closing of the topic. Another na ja token, combined with also (which has also been described as a pre-closing element, cf. Alm 2003; Auer 1996b; Whittington 2007), and the future-oriented proverbial expression mal gespannt close the larger sequence (line 3).60 After a micro pause and a further acknowledgment token, Markus initiates a new topic (line 5) and, with no uptake forthcoming, shifts to yet another possible subject: his plans for the remaining day (lines 10–11). (4.5) SB14ˉshakespeareˉ(115_Oregon1A_205) 1 P:ˉ na ja, schön sin se. prt, beautiful are they. (well)ˉthey’reˉpretty. 2 M:ˉ ja:. ye:s. 3 P:ˉ na ja also, mal gespannt. prt prt, prt curious. ((oh)  well,ˉwe’llˉsee.)

4

(.)

5 M:ˉ h ja. .H hab grad mit der oma telefoniert, eben, h yes. .H have just with the grandma talked, justˉnow, hˉyes.ˉ.Hˉjustˉtalkedˉwithˉgrandma,ˉjustˉnow,

6 M:ˉ .hh[hhhhh]hhh= .hh[hhhhh]hhh=

.  That Paula produces two rounds of closings here may be motivated by the fact that Markus never produces a positive assessment of his mother’s action of buying shirts for him.



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

7 P:ˉ

[m:hm, ] [u:hˉhuh, ]

8 M: =hat bisschen erzählt h[HHHhh ] =has aˉlittle told h[HHHhh ] =(she)talkedˉaˉlittle h[HHHhh ] [ ] 9 P:ˉ [ºmhm,º ] [ºuhˉhuh,º] → 10 M: (n)ja ja;




(n)yes yes;
today go I

 (n)yesˉyes;ˉ
→ 11

.hhhh .hhhh .hhh 12 P:ˉ

the theater.

z[um- ] t[o+the-] t[oˉthe-] [was ]gibts enn, [what ]gives+it prt, [what ]’sˉplaying,

→ 13 M:ˉ .h ä::h ä-ä- zum shakespearefestival .h u::h uh-uh- to+the shakespeare festival .h u::h uh-uh- toˉthe shakespeare festival → 14

fahrich h .h [nach- ] drive+I h .h [to- ] I’llˉdriveˉhˉ.hˉto-ˉ] [ ] 15 P:ˉ

[shakes]ºpeare,º ((pensive)) [shakes]ºpeare,º

16 M:ˉ ja: ye:s



17

theater.

to+the theater.

(0.4)

18 M:ˉ .hhh und dann kuck ich mir school for scandal an .hhh and then watch I refl school for scandal pre .hhˉandˉthenˉI’llˉwatchˉschoolˉforˉscandal 19 (0.6) [(1.1) [

] ]

20 M:ˉ [hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ] [hhhh [ 21 P:ˉ [wie? [how? [what?

 Pivots in German Conversation 22 M:ˉ school for scandal. school for scandal.

23

(0.6)

((backgroundˉnoise))

24 P:ˉ kenn ich net. know I not. don’tˉknowˉthat. 25 M:ˉ ja. yes.

Markus initiates a new topic in line 10 with an announcement of a trip. However, before producing the projected place name, Markus abandons the TCU in progress to correct his announcement of where he will go into one of what he will be doing there. This repair may already suggest trouble on Markus’s part in shaping his telling for this specific recipient (i.e., a problem in recipient design): Paula is familiar with the geographical area in which Markus lives in the US and also with the theater festival Markus is going to attend.61 Thus, Markus can assume that his mother knows the event, a fact crucial for Markus in determining which local reference form to use (Sacks 1992: vol. I, 461–463; Schegloff 1972). He can also assume that she is aware of its “specialness”: Although any visit to the theater may have the status of a special event, this one additionally requires a significant amount of planning and traveling (a four-hour drive for Markus). I will argue that Markus structures his talk in line 10–14 such that he can foreground the “specialness” of his evening plans. After Markus’s announcement of his plans for a theater visit, a slight gap ensues (line 11), in which Paula could respond to her son’s announcement (by providing an assessment or a follow-up question, Maynard 1997). However, no uptake occurs and Markus expands his turn by starting to add further details about the event (it is the name of the festival at which the play will be staged that is projected here, cf. line 13). In overlap with this modifying expansion, Paula produces a delayed response that embraces the proffered topic: She asks a follow-up question (line 12) that targets the name of the play that Markus is going to see. Markus abandons his turn-in-progress in overlap with Paula’s question, and  – delayed by several non-lexical perturbations (line 13) – produces what is hearable as an answer: zum shakespearefestival fahr ich. It could be construed that Markus’s turn in lines 13–14 is not designed to be an answer to the question asked by Paula, even though it is sequentially placed as

.  On the occasion of an earlier visit by Paula to the US, Markus had taken her to this annual event. This ethnographic information was gained from earlier (taped) conversations between Markus and his sister and is relevant for the function of the pivot construction in this specific example.



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

second to a question and provides a lexical element (shakespeare) that can semantically fit (and is taken, cf. line 15) as an answer (Sacks et al. 1974: 728; Schegloff 2007; Schegloff & Sacks 1973: 239). The following observations are relevant here: 1. “To the shakespeare festival (I’m going)” is not a type-fitted answer to “what is playing,” (as an answer such as “a play by Shakespeare (is playing)” would be).62 2. Markus begins his turn in line 13 with a repeat of the preposition+determiner that constituted the last element of his abandoned turn in line 11 and carried the cut-off (zum-). Thus, instead of being an answer to Paula’s question, Markus’s turn seems designed to do a different action. It is a continuation of lines 10–11 across Paula’s intervening talk. In being clearly designed as a continuation of a previous unfinished structure, Markus’s turn constructs Paula’s turn as interruptive and “delet[es] the sequential implicativeness of … [this] intervening question” (Lerner 1989: 171). Structurally, the turn unfolds as a syntactic pivot as follows: (4.6)

SB14ˉshakespeare,ˉpivotˉstructure

heut geh ich ins theater. .hhhh zum- (...) zum shakespearefestival zum shakespearefestival fahrich heut geh ich ins theater. .hhhh zum- (...) zum shakespearefestival fahrich | pre-pivot | pivot | post- | todayˉI’llˉgoˉ toˉtheˉtheater.ˉ.hhhhˉtoˉthe-(...)to the shakespeare  festival I’ll drive

We can note that the two expressions ins theater and zum shakespearefestival not only belong to the same syntactic category (pp), but both constitute members of the same semantic category (“venue at which typically plays are staged”). Thus, it could also be argued that Markus, rather than syntactically continuing the preceding structure, is here replacing ins theater with zum shakespearefestival (Auer 1991, 1996a). This observation would be reflected in an alternative analysis of the boundary between pre-pivot and pivot:

.  Moreover, what Markus is going to see that night is actually not a Shakespeare play, but School for Scandal, a play originally written by 18th-century British playwright Richard Sheridan (cf. line 18). We cannot determine, however, whether Markus himself knows that School for Scandal is not a play by Shakespeare.

 Pivots in German Conversation

(4.7) SB14ˉshakespeare,ˉalternativeˉpivotˉstructure,ˉsimplified heut geh ich zum- (...) zum shakespearefestival zum shakespearefestival fahrich heut geh ich zum- (...) zum shakespearefestival fahrich | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | t  odayˉI’llˉgoˉtoˉthe-ˉ(...)ˉtoˉtheˉshakespeareˉfestivalˉ  I’llˉdrive

It is important to keep in mind that syntactic structures emerge linearly for coparticipants. Thus, each new sentence element is interpreted in light of what preceded it. Based on this understanding of sentence processing and meaning-making, I argue that new elements are heard as continuations of prior talk, provided this is prosodically and semantically possible. At the point at which Markus recycles the preposition that expanded his turn in lines 10–11 and produces an item of the projected category, his talk is hearable as a continuation. Zum shakespearefestival thus constitutes a expansion of heute geh ich ins theater. At the same time, zum shakespearefestival is the first element of a new syntactic structure and action. This syntactic analysis becomes possible at the point at which Markus utters fahr ich with no apparent prosodic break preceding it. The pivot construction (cf. (4.6)/ (4.7)), therefore, combines a backward-looking element – marking the turn as a continuation of prior talk – with a forward-looking element – an announcement containing new information and thus setting up a new array of next relevant actions (Schegloff & Sacks 1973: 296, fn. 6). Thus, Markus’s turn suspends the sequential implicativeness of Paula’s intervening question and additionally controls the direction of the telling (i.e., the order of its constitutive elements). Unlike the observations made for (4.2) segeln and (4.1) bessa, it is in (4.5) not primarily a competing move that endangers the ongoing action. In the present example, the co-participant’s turn displays a problem in the uptake. Markus has described his evening plans as “going to the theater,” which does not convey any of the “specialness” of this particular theater visit. And indeed, Paula’s uptake of this announcement displays her orientation to it as a “regular” theater visit: She asks the (expectable) question of what is playing. As already pointed out, several self-repairs in Markus’s turn indicate that he is negotiating the design of his telling (for this specific recipient; considering her level of knowledge). Through the use of the pivot, he is able to deflect  – and in fact delete  – an action based on either lack of information or misinterpretation on the part of his co-participant. He also highlights the “specialness” of his plans, thereby preparing the grounds for an appropriate response. Data samples (4.1), (4.2), and (4.5) exemplified the use of pivot constructions at crucial points in the interaction at which, it can be argued, speakers see the need to expand a turn in progress in order to steer the development of the topic. In all



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

instances, speakers face a competing upstart by a co-participant ((4.5), also see (4.10) streicheleinheiten) or the development of a competing line of action ((4.2) segeln). This competing action trajectory threatens to derail the structure of the current speaker’s unfolding telling ((4.5) shakespeare) or to undercut its relevance by eliminating the sequentially appropriate place for it, making relevant a different set of responses ((4.3) segeln). All the cases examined so far in this chapter and in Chapter 3 involve overlapping talk. Although the actions carried out through pivot constructions in Chapter 3 (managing the outcome of simultaneous talk) differ from those described here (dealing with a competing action, i.e., overlapping talk marked as interruptive), both strategies point to a more general use of syntactic pivot constructions: They seem to be a resource particularly well suited to solve various kinds of “misaligned recipiency.” The pivot constructions discussed in Chapter 6 support this analysis. In Chapter 6, I show that specific types of pivots are used to deal with misalignments of various sorts in an embedded way, and this includes problems in recipiency. 4.2.2  Resumption after a side sequence In the examples discussed in the previous section, a co-participant initiates the action that leads to a temporary abandonment of the turn in progress and triggers the need to resume previous talk. In example (4.8) dialekte 2, by contrast, it is the first speaker who puts her current action on hold by initiating self-repair. This repair operation touches off a diverging assessment/joke sequence by a second speaker, which threatens to derail the just initiated telling. Here arises the need for the first speaker to do additional interactional work in order to return to and fully launch into the projected story-telling sequence. Similar to (4.2) segeln and (4.5) shakespeare, the pivot occurs at the beginning of a telling, at a sequentially “vulnerable” place where a transition between actions or action trajectories occurs. The pivot is successfully used to resume the extended telling. Tine, Martin, and Eva are engaged in a light-hearted discussion of different dialects of German, specifically, a discussion of several geographical variants of the word “piglet.” Andreas, the only speaker who is not from southern Germany, has already stated (not in transcript) that he is not familiar with the terms Tina and Martin are discussing. The topic is winding down with Tina and Martin repeating some of the words they have just discussed (line 1, schweinderl is a variant typical of Bavarian).63 In line 2, Andreas provides an overall assessments of

.  Here, Markus imitates a strongly trilled [r], typical of Bavarian German (König 1989; Schwitalla 2003: 49)

 Pivots in German Conversation

his co-participants, thus proposing topic-closing (Button & Casey 1985, 1987). In line 3, Tina initiates a new topic by providing an assessment. She thus projects the talk as a multi-unit telling and also indicates the character of this projected telling (C. Goodwin 1984; Jefferson 1978; Sacks 1974). (4.8) SB4ˉdialekteˉ2ˉ(Champaign_Clark_A2)ˉ[face-to-face;ˉnoˉvideoˉdata] 1 M: schweinderrl ((smileˉvoice,ˉrolledˉr)) pigletˉ 2 A:ˉ ihr seids ja wahnsinnig, ey you-2ppl are prt insane, prt man,ˉyou’reˉinsaneˉ 3 T:ˉ .H des geilste war mal, da war ich in (.) ich .H the coolest thing was prt, then/prt was I in (.) I .Hˉtheˉcoolestˉthingˉwas,ˉ(when)ˉIˉwasˉinˉ(.)ˉI 4

war ja: n-e zeitlang war ich64 in=äh <ºwarte mal wie hieß was prt: a- while was I in=uh <ºwait prt how was wasˉf-orˉa-ˉwhileˉIˉwasˉin=uhˉ<ºwaitˉwhatˉwas



5





die stadt,º> (0.2) ä::m (1.0) tsk! 〈LAndshut.〉 named theˉtown,º> (0.2) u::h (1.0) tsk! 〈((townˉname)).〉 theˉnameˉofˉtheˉtownº>ˉ(0.2)ˉu::ˉhˉ(1.0)ˉtsk!ˉ〈LAndshut.〉



6





(.)

7 M:ˉ [>ja.<ˉ ] [>yes.< ] [ ] 8 A:ˉ [hehe ]he[he [hehe ]he[he [ 9 T: [ºinº [landshut. ] [ºinº [landshut. ] [ ] 10 E:ˉ [.hHHHhˉ((laughter/noisyˉinbreath))] [.hHHHh ]

11 A:ˉ tiefstes bayern.=häh? ((softˉspoken)) deepest bavaria.=huh? darkest bavaria.=huh?

*smack/click

*glottalˉstop

.  In addition to the pivot in line 12, Tine produces a syntactic pivot in this turn: ich war ja: n-e zeitlang war ich …. This pivot will be discussed in Chapter 5 (pivot constructions in word searches) as example (5.5).



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

→ 12 T:ˉ *und des war *an dem t(h)ag hats so geschneit;=wirklich *and that was on that d(h)ay has+it so snowed;=really *and that was on that d(h)ay it snowed so heavily;=really ˉ*veryˉemphatic* 13 des da war *
nochˉnie gesehen;=wirklich. des war zu arg .hh un dann never seen;=really. that was too extreme .hh and then snowˉreally;=thatˉwasˉreallyˉcrazyˉ.hhˉandˉthen

15

bin ich raus, ausm hotel und wollt mir irgendwie schnell am I out, of+the hotel and wanted me somehow quick Iˉwentˉout,ˉofˉtheˉhotelˉandˉwantedˉtoˉsomehowˉquicklyˉget



16





ne pizza holen, unda pizza get, andmyselfˉaˉpizza,ˉand-



After announcing the type of story this is going to be, Tine prepares her telling by setting the scene. This action is put on hold for a word search (Egbert 2002a; Golato 2000b; Goodwin & Goodwin 1986; Hayashi 2003b; Schegloff 1979),65 in which Tine tries to recover the name of a region or town (lines 3–5). Her solution to the problem (LAndshut, a town in southern Bavaria) receives an acknowledging ja (line 7) from Martin, who is from that area and thus probably uses the acknowledgment token to indicate recognition. Andreas provides two assessments: Laughter in overlap with Martin’s ja, and, matched by Eva’s laughter in line 10, a follow-up assessment of the town in question (as representing everything that may be held as stereotypically Bavarian). The joking nature of this assessment as well as the final response pursuit token attached to Andreas’s turn invite a response and thus a possible further departure from the story initiated by Tine. Furthermore, Andreas’s move towards topicalizing this aspect of the story (line 8–11, cf. Jefferson 1993; Schegloff 2007: 169–180) coincides with what may be a first recognizable move by Tine back to the story-telling proper: She repeats the retrieved town name, now couched in its syntactic frame in the telling (line 4: in=äh – line 5: 〈Landshut.〉 – line 9: in landshut.). Thus, lines 8–12 constitute a crucial point in determining the further development of the story-telling underway. In line 12, Tine reclaims the floor and she resumes the main sequence. The turn-initial conjunction and the pronoun des structurally mark this as a resumption of the beginning of the story-telling sequence (line 3). Tine’s turn projects .  See also Uhmann (1997b, 2001) on same turn self repair.

 Pivots in German Conversation

further elaboration through the determiner dem in the prepositional phrase. Further elaboration on what kind of day this was, for example in the shape of a relative clause, is expectable next. All these devices are employed to determine the placement of the turn in relation to the preceding talk and to project further talk, keep the attention of the co-participants, and thus secure the floor. As Tine continues her turn, it becomes evident that she transitions from the turn-initial, syntactically possibly complete, structure und des war an dem t(h)ag into a second construction an dem t(h)ag hat’s so geschneit, using the PP as the place of structural transition. It does not become apparent that this shift occurred until the speaker is already “in the middle” of the next syntactic unit and thus in the middle of the next unit of her telling. The structure emerges as follows: (4.9) SB4ˉdialekteˉ2,ˉpivotˉstructure und des war an dem t(h)ag an dem t(h)ag hats so geschneit;66 =wirklich und des war an dem t(h)ag hats so geschneit;=wirklich | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | andˉthatˉwasˉonˉthatˉd(h)ayˉitˉsnowedˉsoˉheavily;=Iˉtellˉyou

As in the previous examples in Section 4.2.1, the speaker uses this pivot construction at topic initiation to expand her turn in progress in order to steer the direction of the evolving interaction.67 At the particular sequential point at which the speaker employs this resource, the sequence is at a crucial interactional juncture, with a co-participant having launched an action that could prompt a departure from the (story) telling the speaker has initiated and is pursuing. Therefore, in the next opportune space, the speaker has to achieve a double task: holding the floor and getting “back on track” (in (4.8) with the projected telling of des geilste). By transitioning seamlessly from a structure that serves to mark the talk as resumptive into another syntactic construction that introduces new material (an announcement) and thus moves the story forward, the speaker in (4.8) effectively skips a possible turn transition point, gains the right to complete another unit, and successfully returns to her story-telling. .  Hat’s so geschneit cannot constitute a relative clause extension to an dem t(h)ag: In German, relative clauses cannot drop the initially-placed relative pronoun. See also Chapter 2, Figure 2.1. .  For examples of pivots in the service of topic elaboration in Swedish, see Norén (2007: 336–44). Such constructions are used to either “continue or demarcate against the ongoing communicative project.” Norén notes in particular the use of “light turn or TCU beginnings” (343) such as Swedish de+e/“there’s” and de+va/“there was” for elaborating new local topics. Des war in segment (4.8), line 12, resembles such light beginners.



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

4.3  Managing competing trajectories at topic closure This section illustrates the use of pivot constructions to steer the development of the talk at a different sequential juncture. While in the previous examples, a pivot construction was used at the beginning of a new topic to secure a successful launch into an extended sequence and steer the direction of the evolving topic, the next two examples display the use of pivots in the environment of topic closings. Here, a pivot may be used to expand the sequence or topic beyond a point where its closure was proposed or even mutually established, or it may work to get back on track towards closure after such an expansion. I thus distinguish “other-initiated” or “competition-initiated” uses, in which pivots are employed to defend a course of action (topic closing) in the face of a competitive action launched in overlap (discussed in Section 4.3.1; cf. 4.2.1), and “self-initiated” uses, in which pivots serve to more than minimally expand a topic or an action sequence after closing was made relevant (discussed in Section 4.3.2) 4.3.1  Resumption after competitive overlap and interruption Segment (4.10) is taken from a report elicited during a business meeting.68 This meeting has as its main goal to provide all members of the company with an update on the status of ongoing projects. It is led by Scholz (SCH), the company’s boss, and participants take turns delivering their reports. Luchs (L) has just detailed the progress of several projects that are under her direction, and she now clarifies, in response to a follow-up question by Scholz, which of these projects/clients will require more attention (e.g., follow-up visits). Here, Luchs encounters trouble retrieving one of the clients’ names and she performs a word search. Scholz provides the solution to her search, and in line 1, Luchs confirms this solution. She then moves to addressing another project that is completed but may require a follow-up visit: m-firma (line 2). (4.10) SB15ˉstreicheleinheitenˉ[07/05/2004;ˉ24: 07–24: 34],ˉface-to-face



*quickˉlookˉatˉD,ˉback

1 L: hen-firma. hen-firma. ge*nau hen-firm. hen-firm. ex*actly

.  This is the only example of a pivot construction from an institutional setting included in my collection. I would like to thank Tobias Barske for making this segment available to me. For a more detailed description of these data and of the interactional organization of business meetings, see Barske (2006, in press).

 Pivots in German Conversation *turnsˉheadˉtoˉSCHˉ.... 2 L:ˉ .hhh u:nd ä:hm (0.5) m-fi:rma? ist zwar (.) abge*hAKT[:,ˉ ] .hhh a:nd u:hm (0.5) m-firm? is adv (.) thr*oughˉ[:, ˉ] .hhhˉa:ndˉu:hmˉ(0.5)ˉm-firm?ˉ(yesˉthat)ˉisˉ(.) d*one[:, ] [ ] 3 SCH:ˉ [nod]

ˉ4 L: aber es ist glaub ich noch nicht ganz





but it is think I not yet

beim

kunden durch,

completely at+the client through,

butˉIˉthinkˉforˉtheˉclientˉit’sˉnotˉyetˉcompletelyˉdone,

5 SCH: m[hm.ˉ] m[hm.ˉ]

[

6 L:ˉ

[dieˉ] waren also nicht *ganz so* glücklich aber da *(0.5)* [they] were prt not *really so* happy but prt *(0.5)* [they]ˉwereˉprtˉnotˉ*reallyˉthat*ˉhappyˉbutˉprtˉ*(0.5)*

]

*gazeˉdown*

*headˉshake*

 *eyebrows up, moves hand with open palm forward, then left  to right, gaze is down* 7 *bin ich jetzt* (0.1) auch nicht so ganz informiert *am I now* (0.1) also not so completely informed *I’mˉnow*ˉ(0.1)ˉ(actually)ˉnotˉentirelyˉinformed

8 D:ˉ mhm. mhm.

*L:ˉgazeˉshiftˉfromˉpaperˉtoˉSCH

→ 9 L:ˉ ich gl*aub da muss man no[ch en bisschen I th*ink prt must one st[ill a little Iˉth*inkˉprtˉoneˉhasˉtoˉ [[((v))ˉaˉlittleˉmore [ *LˉturnsˉgazeˉtoˉD 10 D:ˉ [die wollten erst mal g*Ar [they wanted for now int [theyˉdidn’tˉwantˉtoˉhear 11 nichts mehr hören von dem gan [zen hchrrrrr. ] nothing any moreˉhear of the w [hole hchrrrr. ] anyˉmoreˉaboutˉtheˉwholeˉthing [forˉaˉwhileˉhchrrr. [ ]

[

→ 12 L:ˉ

[zum str*EIchel- ] fü*r [for *CAre- ] fo*r





*nod

] *L: head/

gazeˉtoˉSCH*

→ 13

STREI*cheleinheiten muss man da noch en paar mal hinfahren.



LO*vingˉcareˉoneˉhasˉtoˉprtˉdriveˉthereˉaˉfewˉmoreˉtimes.

LO*ving care

14 SCH: m:[hm? ] m:[hm? ] [ ]

must one prt still a few times drive there.



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

15 D:ˉ

16

[ gen]au [exact]ly (0.8)

17 L:ˉ ja. yes.

18 SCH: mhm. mhm. mhm. mhm.



*swallows*

19 L:ˉ *al*so erst mal alle soweit (0.8) [(0.5) [(0.2) ]= *prt* for now all soˉfar (0.8) [(0.5) [(0.2) ]= *(so)* for now everybody (0.8) [(0.5) [(0.2) ]= [ [ ] 20 SCH:ˉ [ [naˉok. ] [ [prtˉok. ] 21 S:ˉ [hhhhhhhhh. 22 L:ˉ =beschäftigt. =busy. =busyˉsoˉfar.

23

(2.0)

24 SCH: jut. good.

25

(0.8)

26 SCH: und der herr danner? and the mr danner? and mr danner?

Luchs reports the status of the project involving m-firm as abgehakt/“completed” (line 2). However, several features of her turn project more information to come and thus some type of modification of her statement: Rising intonation at the end of the TCU marks this as a section of a yet-incomplete larger report (Barske 2006: 104); zwar/“although”/“on the one hand” projects a contrast or qualification to the statement in which it is used. Scholz, the recipient of the report produces a non-verbal continuer in line 3, whereupon Luchs specifies the problem: Her perception of the status of the project does not align with the client’s. Since Luchs is reporting on a project to her supervisor, the suggestion of a solution for this problem and a description of next steps in implementing this solution (and thus securing the satisfaction of the client) would be relevant next. Luchs provides neither. Instead, she offers an unspecific description of the client’s position (line 6) and a claim of no (further) knowledge (line 7), thereby implicitly dismissing the project and the client’s views (or satisfaction) as of secondary importance to the

 Pivots in German Conversation

matters-at-hand. Through this preemptive move to stop further inquiries into the matter (note also her non-verbal behavior in lines 6–7), Luchs attempts to close the telling. The meeting facilitator Scholz, however, does not align with this closing. He provides only a minimal acknowledgment in response (line 8) and thus his interpretation of the sequence as not yet complete. The direction of Luchs’s next turn seems motivated by factors of face (her identity and responsibility as an employee and project manager are at stake): Possibly to weaken the impression that she is either not well informed or concerned about her client’s satisfaction or not assuming responsibility for the outcome of the project, Luchs suggests what should be done to appease the client (lines 9, 12–13). In overlap with this move, another meeting participant, Danner, produces further expressions of the client’s discontent. He thereby continuing a line of action from which Luchs had moved away and effectively undermines her efforts to downplay or counteract what was interpretable as disinterest in good relations with m-firm.69 In the face of overlap with Danner, Luchs yields the floor (line 9) and shifts her gaze from the primary recipient of the telling, Scholz, to the current speaker, Danner. Before Danner’s turn reaches possible completion (and makes a new set of responses relevant), however, Luchs assumes speakership again to produce an item that syntactically continues her abandoned turn, zum streichel- (line 12). She then produces a cut-off and, in the clear, repairs her talk by tracing back to the beginning of the syntactic unit (the functional head, see Uhmann 1997b, 2001), replacing the preposition zu with für (Schegloff 1979, 1987c), and completing the cut-off noun.70 (4.11) SB15ˉstreicheleinheiten,ˉmodifiedˉtranscript 9 L:ˉ ich glaub da muss man noch en bisschen I think prt must one still a little Iˉthinkˉprtˉoneˉhasˉtoˉ((verb))ˉaˉlittleˉmore ˉ...ˉ((LˉshiftsˉgazeˉtoˉD)) *nod *L:ˉhead/gazeˉtoˉSCH* 12/13 L:ˉ [zum str*EIchel- ] fü*r STREI*cheleinheiten muss man da [for CAre- ] fo*r LO*vingˉcare must one prt [for CAre- ] fo*rˉLO*vingˉcareˉoneˉhasˉtoˉprtˉdrive

.  Her choice of words, however, maintains a sense of belittling the client’s concerns: streicheleinheiten/“(tender) loving care”. .  It seems that Luchs repairs the nominalized verb Streichel(n)/“caressing”/“stroking” with the plural compound noun Streicheleinheiten/“loving care”. This change of the type and number of the noun requires a repair of the preposition.



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

13

noch en paar mal hinfahren. still a few more timesˉdriveˉthere. there a few more times.

Thus, even though she displays attention to Danner’s turn (eye gaze, lines 10–11, non-verbal acknowledgment, line 12), Luchs’s turn in lines 12–13 is constructed syntactically as a continuation of the prior turn. She thereby not only marks Danner’s talk as interruptive (Lerner 1989) but in fact sequentially deletes it (cf. Section 4.2.1). The next element in Luchs’s turn is not the projected TCU completion (an infinitive, see Chapter 2 on the German sentence brace), but the modal muss, a recycling of the verb used in line 9. The placement of the inflected verb requires a reanalysis of zum streichel- as occupying the first position (front field) of a new construction (vs. occupying a position in the inner field of the prior). This renders lines 9–13 as one unit, a syntactic pivot construction.71 (4.12) SB15ˉstreicheleinheiten,ˉpivotˉstructure

(1) da muss man noch

en bisschen [zum streichel-] für STREIcheleinheiten ((infˉprojected)) 

(2)

[zum streichel-] für STREIcheleinheiten muss man

da noch en paar mal hinfahren.

(3) da muss man noch en bisschen [zum streichel-] für STREIcheleinheiten muss man da noch en paar mal hinfahren. |----------pre-pivot----------| |------------------pivot----------------| |---------------post-pivot----------------|

The post-pivot structure recycles several elements from the pre-pivot structure (the particle da, the verb–subject complex muss man, the adverb noch) and is thereby constructed as a reissuing of the prior action (line 9) as opposed to a new (responsive) move. Luchs’s non-verbal behavior further supports this observation: Luchs’s gaze shift from Danner back to Scholz coincides with the end of her self-repair and with her launching into a through-produced utterance – a reissuing of line 9 to its

.  Again, it is crucial to understand pivot constructions as phenomena that emerge in interaction. The dimension of temporality is crucial to spoken interaction and specifically to how participants make meaning of (syntactic, sequential, pragmatic) structures. As in segment (4.5) shakespeare, I argue that the PP zum streichel- für STREIcheleinheiten is – by way of its placement and the projective force of the previous structure – initially heard as the continuation of a prior unfinished structure. Only with the subsequent production of muss it becomes apparent that this element also serves as the first position of a new structure.

 Pivots in German Conversation

original recipient Scholz. By using a pivot at this specific interactional juncture, at a point which is sequentially crucial and interactionally delicate, Luchs manages to stall a competing line of action by Danner and continue her turn and action in progress. She closes the larger sequence (her report as a whole) in lines 19–22. This time Scholz ratifies the closure (line 24) and subsequently selects Danner as the next participant to provide a report. 4.3.2  Expanding a topic or an action sequence Segment (4.10) exemplified the use of a pivot in the environment of sequence closings to fend off an action that threatens to derail the course of the sequence or topic. Thus, through the pivot, a speaker manages to secure the floor to steer the sequence back on track towards closing. In this section, I will present two examples of pivot constructions that are used in a similar environment, but whose function is to expand the sequence and topic beyond a point where its closure was proposed or even mutually established. Rather than being motivated by a coparticipant’s competing, these expansions may be termed self-motivated. Example (4.13) semesterbeitrag is taken from a conversation between Ingo, currently an exchange student in the US, and Xaver, a student in Germany. Ingo’s return to Germany is drawing close, and he is preparing for the fall semester in Germany. This includes paying his student fees before the start of the semester. With the payment deadline approaching, Xaver offers to provide Ingo (via mail) with the forms needed to make the deposit. Ingo reiterates their agreement (not in transcript) and some further descriptive details, which Xaver acknowledges (line 1). This is followed by a ‘thank you’-sequence (lines 2–3), which closes the topic. Topic bounding techniques such as reiterations of arrangements and “reasons-for-call” as well as ‘thank you’s may propose conversation closing (Button 1987:  149; Schegloff & Sacks 1973). Following these, a “closing section” is commonly relevant. At the same time, after a topic closing (and also after a proposal of conversation closing, see Schegloff & Sacks 1973), a proper place for introducing yet-unmentioned topics opens up. Thus, following line 3 one of the speakers could propose conversation closing or initiate a new topic. Ingo uses this opportunity space to expand the previous request sequence, thus reopening it (cf. Schegloff 2007: 148–168, on nonminimal post-expansions). (4.13) SB7ˉsemesterbeitragˉ(70_Ingo2B_350) 1 X:ˉ (gut) ja: schreib ich mir au[f, (good) ye:s write I refl dow[n, (good) ye:s I’llˉwriteˉ(it) dow[nˉ(forˉmyself), [



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

2 I:ˉ

[vielenˉdank.= [manyˉthanks.= [thanksˉaˉlot.=

3 X:ˉ =das >gar kein< pro[blem. =that >int no< pro[blem. =that(‘s)ˉ>absolutelyˉnoˉproblem. [ *glottalˉstop → 4 I:ˉ [und (.) dENkste daran dass *ähm: (0.1) [and (.) thINK+you of+it that uhm: (0.1) [andˉ(.)ˉwillˉyouˉ(please)ˉremember  thatˉuhm:ˉ(0.1)

→

5





dass ich am that I

*slow,ˉcarefullyˉpronounced*

〈fünfzehnten〉 (.) *ju:ni: *=hh bin ich hier weg.

on+the 〈fifteenth〉

(.) *ju:ne *=hh am I





6

here gone.

thatˉI(‘llˉbeˉgone)ˉonˉtheˉ〈fifteenth〉ˉ(.)ˉofˉ*ju:ˉne*=hh

I’llˉbeˉgone.

(0.4)

7 X:ˉ fünfzehnten juni biste schon weg.= fifteenth june are+you already gone.= (onˉthe)ˉfifteenthˉofˉjuneˉyou’reˉalreadyˉgone.=

8 I:ˉ =ja dasis also nich mehr lang. =yes that+is prt not anymore long. =yesˉsoˉthat’sˉnotˉfarˉawarˉanymore. 9 X:ˉ dann sehn wir uns ja im semester hier sogar noch=h then see we refl prtˉ in+the semester here even still=h thenˉwe’llˉprtˉeven/actuallyˉseeˉeachˉotherˉhereˉduring  theˉsemester=h



10

(0.1)

11 I:ˉ ich bin ja aba nich nach- (i)sch komm ja nich nach I am prt though not to- (I) come prt not to butˉIˉamˉprtˉnotˉto-ˉ(I)’mˉnotˉgoingˉprtˉto 12

deutschland. germany.

13 X:ˉ ach ja=du fährst ja noch wo[hin prt =you drive prt still so[mewhere ohˉthat’sˉright=you’reˉstillˉgoingˉsomewhere [ 14 I:ˉ

[ich fahr noch siebn [I drive another seven [I(’ll) drive around here for

 Pivots in German Conversation 15

wochen hier rum; weeks here around; anotherˉsevenˉweeks;

Ingo’s turn in line 4, itself a request in the form of a reminder, modifies the previous request sequence by highlighting time constraints crucial to its successful fulfillment. By prefacing the information with DENkste dran dass/“(will you please) reMEMber that,” Ingo constructs the information that follows as shared knowledge, but knowledge that may not presently be available to the co-participant (or may not have been recognized as relevant to the matter at hand). The information is structurally couched in a subordinate clause. In subordinate clauses in German, the verb surfaces at the end of the clause (Auer 1991, 1996a; Eisenberg 1989; see Chapter 2, this volume), with predicate complements, if obligatory, preceding the inflected verb. Thus, dass (line 4) projects a verb in final position as well as a prepositional phrase or predicate complement next. A prepositional phrase and an inflected verb indeed follow. The verb, however, requires a complement (e.g., an advp), which should consequently precede the verb. Based on syntactic projection and word order rules in German, then, the verb has thus to be interpreted as placed in second position  – with the prepositional phrase occupying the front field and the subject ich appearing in inner-field position. The whole structure is a syntactic pivot. In this construction, not only a transition from one syntactic construction to the next occurs but also a shift in sentence type from subordinate to main clause. (4.14) SB7ˉsemesterbeitrag,ˉpivotˉstructure dass ich am 〈fünfzehnten〉 (.) ju:ni: ((adv + v projected)) am 〈fünfzehnten〉 (.) ju:ni:=hh bin ich hier weg. dass ich am 〈fünfzehnten〉 (.) ju:ni: =hh bin ich hier weg. that I on+the 〈fifteenth〉 (.) ju:ne =hh am I here gone. | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | |----------ˉsubordinateˉclauseˉstructure ------| |----------------ˉmainˉclauseˉstructureˉ--------------| thatˉIˉ(‘ll be gone)ˉonˉtheˉ〈fifteenth〉 (.) ofˉju:ˉne=hhˉI’llˉbeˉgone.

In terms of the action performed in this turn, we can note that Ingo performs a shift in format and action – from a request done as a question to an announcement of news – in one extended TCU.72 This shift entails (or may in the first place be guided by) a change in the speaker’s epistemic stance (Ingo’s interpretation of Xaver’s state of access

.  Cf. Lerner (1991) on compound TCUs.



Chapter 4.  Steering the emerging direction of the talk 

to the information): Ingo shifts from constructing Xaver as a knowing participant73 to constructing him as not informed or not remembering. Xaver’s response warrants this shift: He presents a repeat of the information in question for confirmation (line 7), thereby treating it as new,74 and he misunderstands its implications (line 9–12). In this example the speaker again uses a pivot to continue a TCU beyond its potential completion point to repair a prior assumption. This pivot construction is part of a larger turn (lines 4–5) that expands a topic beyond its closure point. In other words, the syntactic pivot marks the connection of the turn to the previous talk while performing a shift from presenting information as shared to presenting the same information as an announcement of news. Thus, the local function of the pivot construction here is to facilitate a shift from a minimal to a non-minimal expansion. All examples in my collection of pivot constructions that expand a sequence or topic beyond a point of (mutually established) closure show an orientation to issues of knowledge and knowledge claims. In such situations, pivots either navigate from assuming to establishing knowledge as shared or they shift focus from incongruent positions to less “disputed” aspects of a topic and thereby expand it. 4.4  Discussion This chapter provided a discussion of pivots used to expand a turn in progress in order to negotiate crucial boundaries in the organization of turns within the development of a larger sequence and topic. More specifically, the examples display that speakers employ pivot constructions to accomplish resumptions and reopenings. These include the transition from competing or intervening talk back to the main sequence, whereby speakers are able to negotiate side sequences and competing actions. Pivots also facilitate the continuation of a topic or action trajectory after closure has been made relevant and thus enable speakers to negotiate competing sequential relevancies or perform a shift in focus. Pivots that serve this function occur at sequential and topical junctures in conversation, that is, in environments in which participants launch into an extended sequence, bring such a sequence to a closure, or extend such a sequence. At such

.  The format of Ingo’s request (line 4) and Xaver’s remembering achja (line 13, see Betz & Golato 2008) suggest that Ingo’s departure date was mentioned in an earlier conversation. However, it has not been a topic in the present call. .  Cf. Golato and Betz (2008) for a similar use of German ach+repeat followed by co-participant confirmation.

 Pivots in German Conversation

points in interaction, i.e., where sequential or topical shifts occur, participants to talk regularly have to engage in additional interactional work to negotiate shifts successfully. Syntactic pivot constructions provide interactants with a resource to extend a turn-in-progress by adding unprojected elements. Thus, they seem to provide a powerful resource for speakers to deal with concurrent and competing actions by co-participants and thereby to manage sequential and topical shifts. Because they provide insight into how speakers steer the course of an emerging sequence, get “off topic” and back “on topic,” and manage evolving diverging sequences, the observations in this section are closely related and relevant to the study of story-telling (C. Goodwin 1984; Jefferson 1978, 1993; Sacks 1974, 1986; Schegloff & Sacks 1973) and topic development in interaction (Beach 1993; Boden & Bielby 1986; Button & Casey 1985, 1989; Campion & Langdon 2004; Drew & Holt 1998; Golato 2006; Holt & Drew 2005; Jefferson 1984; Maynard 1980; Raymond 2004).75 We can also note that the pivots discussed in this chapter (Section 4.3 in particular) are produced in situations that are interactionally “delicate,” because they involve corrections of one’s state of knowledge, disagreements, challenges, etc. In example (4.10) streicheleinheiten, for example, issues of face as an employee are clearly at play. In segment (4.5) shakespeare, Markus corrects his mother’s interpretation of the significance of his announcement of news. The specific advantage that pivots present in such interactionally “delicate” situations remains to be investigated through a larger collection of these types of pivots in various environments. Chapter 6, which describes the use of pivot constructions in embedded self-correction to manage trouble in affiliation, alignment, and recipiency, is a step towards this goal.

.  These references include work done on mundane conversation and on institutional talk.

chapter 5

Pivot constructions as a resource for managing repair Searching for a word 5.1  Introduction 5.1.1  Conversational repair In this chapter, I discuss the use of pivot constructions in the environment of conversational repair. “Repair” in conversation refers to the mechanisms and resources available to participants to deal with trouble in speaking, hearing, and understanding (Egbert 2002a; Fox & Jasperson 1995; Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff et al. 1977). The defining characteristic of conversational repair is that the current activity is put on hold; dealing with trouble is made the business of the interaction, and after the resolution of the problem, the main activity is resumed. Repair operations may include reformulations, modifications, word searches, corrections, error corrections, requests for clarification, understanding checks, etc. Repair may occur at any place in the conversation, may be initiated by the current speaker (self-initiated repair) or by the co-participant(s) (other-initiated repair), and may then be carried out by either the speaker or the co-participant(s) (self-completed vs. other-completed repair). Thus, based on the criteria of who initiates and who completes the repair, we distinguish several types of repair. While we can say that, in general, there are no constraints on what can be the source of trouble and therefore the target of repair (Schegloff 2007: 100–101), the specific types of repair (according to where and by whom repair is initiated) are not evenly distributed in conversation. They exhibit constraints in terms of placement within turns and within sequences, i.e., the first opportunity to initiate repair falls to the speaker of the trouble source, so that self-initiation of repair occurs overwhelmingly in same-turn position with reference to the trouble source. There are also preferences observable in terms of type of repair, i.e., self-initiation of repair is preferred over other-initiation; self-completion over other-completion (Schegloff 1979). The analytic focus of this chapter is a type of (self-initiated, overwhelmingly selfcompleted) repair that deals with a specific sort of trouble: trouble finding a lexical

 Pivots in German Conversation

item (a concept, proper or common noun). In the literature addressing self-repair in naturalistic speech and interaction (e.g., Auer 2005a; Egbert 2002a; Fox et al. 1996; Fox & Jasperson 1995; Rieger 2003; Schegloff 1979, 1992, 1997; Schegloff et al. 1977; Schönfeldt & Golato 2003; Tischer 1997; Uhmann 1997b, 2001; T. Weber 1998), word searches have received some attention in analyses of English conversation (cf. M. Goodwin 1983; Goodwin & Goodwin 1986; Willey 2001 on classroom interactions) and of other languages (Hayashi 2003b, for Japanese; Auer & Rönfeld 2004; Golato 2000b, 1997a; Iványi 1997b, 2002; Rönfeld & Auer 2002; Streeck 1993, for German; Streeck 1993, for Ilokano; Sorjonen 1997, cited in Helasvuo, Laakso & Sorjonen 2004; Kurhila 2006, for Finnish). While previous research has described a variety of local lexical and non-lexical resources that interactants use to initiate word searches and negotiate the process of and participation structures in searching for a word, little has been said about (1) the organization of the ends of word searches or (2) the systematic use of specific syntactic resources in the organization of word searches (with the exception of Hayashi 2003b, 2004a). This chapter attempts to fill this gap. 5.1.2  The target phenomenon I will describe pivot constructions as a syntactic practice that is employed systematically to structure different stages in the organization of word searches and thus shed more light on (1) the organization of word searches in German in general, specifically the transition between word search activities and other actions, and (2) the relationship between syntax and repair. This chapter is organized as follows: In the next section (5.1.3), I give a short overview of the recurrent structures and elements that occur in word searches, focusing on the search process and the resolution of the search in mundane interaction. Following the outline of basic features in the organization of word searches as described in previous research, I discuss one syntactic strategy that native speakers of German employ in the process of searching for a word: syntactic pivots. The following data segment presents a first example of the target phenomenon. (5.1) WS_C3ˉmotorradunfallˉ[129_Oregon1A_480],ˉsimplified → 1 M:ˉ .hh ºje- e- jetzº bis (0.1) BIs zu dem unfall m- ham .hh ºno- e- nowº until (0.1) until the accident m- have .hhˉºno-ˉe-ˉnowºˉuntilˉ(0.1)ˉupˉunTILˉtheˉaccidentˉm→ 2

meine mei- meine: ELtern haben andauernd gesacht #ja: my my- my: PA:rents have constantly said #ye:s (said)ˉmyˉmy-ˉmy:ˉPA:rentsˉconstantlyˉsaidˉ#(well)

3

Chapter 5.  Searching for a word  fahr nur vorsichtig dass da nichts passiert?# .hhh drive prt carefully so that prt nothing happens?# .hhh (just)ˉdriveˉcarefullyˉsoˉthatˉnothingˉhappens?#ˉ.hhh

In line 1, the speaker engages in a search for the kinship term ELtern, the noun projected by the possessive meine (line 1). At the third consecutive syntactic slot at which the projected item is due, after meine: (line 2), Markus produces ELtern, a possible solution to the search in terms of semantic category (a kinship term), constituent type (a noun phrase), and morphology (plural). Following the retrieval of the searched-for term, Markus recycles the verb haben (which corresponds to the phonetically reduced form ham in line 1), thus rendering the NP meine Eltern the first element of a new syntactic structure. The initiation of the search, its operation, and its end (i.e., the resumption of the previous action trajectory) all fall within the boundaries of one turn constructional unit, a syntactic pivot construction. 5.1.3  Properties of word searches in interaction Word searches have been defined as the activity in which speakers engage when they actively search for an item that is unavailable to them at the point in the conversation at which it is due (Schegloff et al. 1977). Usually speakers search for lexical items, either a word (e.g., an object, a name) or larger structural units (e.g., a prepositional phrase, an adverbial expression of time). Language learners also search for grammatical items (Kurhila 2006; Seo & Koshik 2007). When speakers engage in a word search, they put the current activity on hold to attend to the problem, i.e., to perform the search. After the resolution of the problem (i.e., the recovery of the searched-for item) or after having “given up” searching, they return to the main sequence or activity. Thus, searching for a word belongs to the category of repair employed to deal with trouble in speaking. In contrast to repair that targets a problem with something already said – by expanding, modifying, or replacing a just-produced utterance – word searches target not-yet-produced items; they are therefore referred to as forward-looking repairs. We can distinguish three phases in a word search: (1) The search initiation, (2) the search process, and (3) the end or resolution of the search. The beginning of a search, the point of self-interruption, is typically marked by repair initiators (Schegloff 1979; Schegloff et al. 1977), such as gaze withdrawal from the co-participant in face-to-face interactions (M. Goodwin 1983), cut-offs, pauses, or non-lexical speech perturbations, such as sound stretches or the token “uh” in English (Schegloff et al. 1977) or äh in German (Egbert 2002a).76 .  Such markers have been documented to initiate a search in a variety of languages (cf. Fox et al. 1996; Schegloff et al. 1977, for English; Fox et al. 1996; Hayashi 2003b, for Japanese;

 Pivots in German Conversation

The search process itself is variable in length and complexity, and the speaker may be successful or unsuccessful in retrieving the searched-for item (in the latter case, the search is abandoned or a co-participant may be prompted for help).77 During the search, speakers typically produce non-lexical elements and/or lexical elements, such as repetitions, descriptions, or meta-comments.78 Speakers may also employ non-verbal resources to indicate the type of activity they are engaging in (Goodwin & Goodwin 1986; Hayashi 2003b; Streeck 1993) and to index the cognitive demands of a word search or stimulate retrieval of a searched-for item (Streeck 1993). A typical lexical component of word search sequences is the recycling of lexical elements. The scope of recycling has been shown to depend on the boundaries of syntactic constituents (Fox et al. 1996; Fox & Jasperson 1995; Hoffmann 1991; Kindt 1994; Levelt 1983, 1989; Schegloff 1979; Uhmann 1997a, 1997b, 2001) and its frequency varies across languages: Recycling in German is notably lower than in languages such as English and Hebrew (Fox et al. 2006).79 As the overwhelming majority of word searches in my data involve the search for a noun phrase, the recycling typically involves determiners or prepositions. The resolution or outcome of a word search is projected in the talk preceding the initiation of a search. Thus, the projectional strength of the broken-off unit

Golato & del Moral 2004, for Spanish; Streeck 1993, for Ilokano; Golato 2000b; Iványi 1997a, 1997b, 2002; Rönfeld & Auer 2002; Streeck 1993, for German; Helasvuo et al. 2004, for Finnish). However, what specific types of sounds are used to initiate self-repair depends on the phonological inventory of a particular language. Typically, they are sounds that are not phonemic, i.e., that do not serve to distinguish between words/morphemes in that language. Daden and McLaren (1978), who investigated same turn repairs in Quiche conversation, found that cut-offs are absent from their data. They suggest that this is because glottal stops are phonemic in Quiche (cf. Schegloff (1987b)). See also findings by Streeck (1996) on Ilokano and by Moerman (1977) on Thai. .  It has been argued that this property of word searches (as well as the fact that searches are often continued beyond a point at which a co-participant signals understanding) is intimately linked to matters of face work (Goffman 1981), that is, the avoidance of loss of face (status, etc.) in interaction (Auer & Rönfeld 2004; Rönfeld & Auer 2002; Selting 1987a). .  Rönfeld and Auer (2002: 100) discuss word searches as involving a variety of “zeitgewinnenden und lückenverdeckenden Strategien.” The latter may include strategies that are not discussed in this chapter, such as the use of code-switching in word searches of bilingual speakers, or the use of prosody (notably significant increases in volume in the talk immediately following a search) to gloss over problems of lexical access in searches carried out by aphasic speakers. .  According to Fox et al. (2006), structural reasons for this may be found in morphological and syntactic properties of German, including extensive case and gender marking and typological inconsistencies (German is a mixed SVO/SOV language), which result in a relatively flexible word order.



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

remains valid. By attending to the syntactic and pragmatic parameters established by the projection, co-participants are capable of determining a potential search outcome and thus recognizing the continuation or completion of the structure that was put on hold. An item that fits the projection, however, need not constitute the actual solution. It may be marked by the speaker as the actual solution (see the turn-final acknowledgment token ja in segment (5.2)), an approximation of the searched-for item (see instance (5.3)), or as a preliminary solution, a “stand-in” or place holder for an item yet to be produced. The latter is typically done using generic nominals such as dings/dingsda (Golato 2000b; Rönfeld & Auer 2002) or prospective indexicals such as dieserint(en)/“that kind of thing” in Siebenbürger Sächsisch or “thingy” and lexicalized clauses such as “whatchamacallit” and “whatshisface” in English (cf. C. Goodwin 1987: 124, 1996: 384–5; Hayashi 2003b: 121–29, 136; Hayashi & Yoon 2006). (5.2)

204_Oregon2B_313ˉunterrichten

((OmaˉisˉinquiringˉaboutˉMarkus’sˉcurrentˉactivities.ˉHeˉisˉaˉteachingˉassistantˉatˉaˉ university inˉtheˉUS.))

1 O: bist du schon beim unterricht↑en? are you already cont teachinf? areˉyouˉalreadyˉteach↑ing ... 7 M: schon seit paar wochen.→ischglaub j<etzt isses die already for coupleˉof weeks.→I+think n
dritte .hh moment. ä::m >.H< die dritte woche is jetzt third .hh moment. u::m >.H< the third week is now thirdˉ.hhˉwaitˉaˉsecond.ˉu::mˉ>.H< the third week is over

→ 9

rum.→ja< over.→yes< now.→yes<





(5.3)

Segmentˉ7,ˉtakenˉfromˉStreeckˉ(1993: 291)80

((Speaker A is describing the performance of a play. She cuts off her first attempt to describe her impression of the scene (line 3), probably to search for a more fitting adjective. The outcome of the search (line 4) is marked as merely an approximation by weiß auch nich.))

.  Transcription conventions here are those used in the original. Bold face indicates stress; capitalization of letters does not indicate an increase in volume. I added to the translation in line 3 in parentheses.

 Pivots in German Conversation

1 A: Dritte Szene wa:r- ohne Worte. Third scene was- without words. 2

Fing erst ohne Worteˉan. Began first without words.

3

Das war dann irgendwie so:-m .hh sehr metaphThat was somehow- (li:keˉm .hh) very metaph-

wigglesˉ(withˉfingers) _______|____________ˉ...ˉˉ | → 4 uhm najam. Metaph(h)ysisch, w(h)eiß auch nich. uhm well. Metaphysical, Iˉd(h)on’t know either.

While a speaker may specifically mark the status of the outcome of a word search and thereby mark its end, the boundary of a word search activity does overwhelmingly not involve additional interactional work. Usually, it is the return to the main line of action, the “resum[ption of] the forward progress of utterance construction” (Hayashi 2004a: 581; cf. Auer 2005a) that simultaneously indexes the end of the search.81 The “default” way of closing a word search is thus unmarked. In the main section of this Chapter, I explore the use of pivot constructions in word searches. The structures on which I focus typically take the following shape (the target of the search in (5.4) is middle or middle one): (5.4)

Sampleˉ(17),ˉexampleˉandˉanalysisˉtakenˉfromˉSchegloffˉ(1979: 276)82



((MˉisˉlookingˉatˉaˉpictureˉofˉVˉandˉhisˉfamily.))



1 M: IˉsawˉitˉbutˉIˉneverˉlookedˉyihknowˉetˉdid-eh-deh-deh-



2

middleˉoneˉlooksˉjust//justˉlike,

The phrase [did-eh-deh-deh-] middle one is potentially syntactic with what precedes [‘I never looked, you know, at the middle one’]; it turns out to be the “subject” of a new sentence [‘the middle one looks just just like . . . ’].

5.1.4  Chapter outline My data indicate that most pivot constructions used in the environment of word searches are used at the end of a search. One of their functions in these environments is to mark the search as completed and thus the activity as closed. I will start

.  See also Auer (2005a) and Stoltenburg (2007) on continuations after parenthetical insertions in German. .  In this transcript, bold face (line 1) indicates stress; double slashes (line 2) indicate the beginning of overlapping talk by another speaker. I added to the analysis in square brackets.



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

out by discussing when and why – despite having the option of “doing nothing special” – a speaker may opt to employ additional resources in this fashion to mark the end of a word search activity (Section 5.2.1). I distinguish two discrete moments within word searches (overwhelmingly searches for names) and three different functions that pivots serve in these environments. Using examples from my German data, I illustrate how pivot constructions, through their basic function of extending a TCU and turn at talk, can be employed systematically during or at the end of a word search to accomplish different, context-specific interactional goals: 1. Pivots are employed to gain further search or processing time in order to retrieve the not-yet-available lexical item during a word search (Section 5.2.2). 2. Pivots serve to mark the search as completed by establishing cohesion or coherence with previous talk at the end of a word search (Section 5.2.3) after the searched-for item has been retrieved and produced (see segment (5.1)). 3. Pivots may be employed to mark the search as completed and fulfill additional functions at the end of a word search after the searched-for item has been retrieved and produced. a. By using the outcome of a search in a new syntactic frame and action, speakers can reframe the searched-for item in terms of, e.g., epistemic security (Section 5.2.3). b. Speakers may retroactively characterize the previous action as having involved a word search, thus bringing to the interactional surface what had not been readily observable (Section 5.2.5). c. Speakers may use a pivot construction to correct a reference formulation, thus showing orientation to a recipient’s state of knowledge (Section 5.2.5). Chapter 5 concludes with a summary of my findings, provides some observations on word searches in German, and sketches the implications of my findings for the study of grammar in talk-in-interaction (Section 5.3).

5.2  Pivots used as a resource in the activity of searching for a word 5.2.1  Interactional environment and pivot types The main property of pivot constructions is that they allow a speaker to extend a turn in progress beyond a point of possible completion in a most unmarked way: In contrast to turn expansions (see Chapter 2), a pivot construction masks a point of possible completion and thus a possible point of speaker change.

 Pivots in German Conversation

Moreover, a pivot construction allows the speaker to extend the turn in progress in an unprojected way and thus engenders a syntactic “reprojection” (Fox et al. 1996) of the syntactic trajectory of the turn. Because the departure point for the new structure (pivot + post-pivot) is an element that is produced as part of the initially projected structure (pre-pivot + pivot), the new structure is not marked as a new start. Instead, it is “brought off ” as a “legitimate” continuation of the structure in progress. This property figures centrally in the use of pivot construction in word searches, particularly when they are used during the search process, that is, when the searched-for item has not been produced yet (Section 5.2.2). Here, pivots seem to constitute a strategy to gain processing time in the search for the temporarily unavailable item. Structurally, the main feature of pivot constructions is that they allow for a sentence-level element that is realized once to be functional in two syntactic constructions, potentially serving different grammatical functions in each. This property may be instrumentalized during word searches through both mirror-image and modified (mirror-image) constructions (see Chapter 2). In mirror-image constructions, the post-pivot structure reissues (“mirrors”) the lexical material of the pre-pivot structure, thus marking a connection to prior talk in a syntactically circular, backward-oriented move. When used during the search process, such a regressive move occurs within a subsidiary activity (word search) that is designed to stall the progress of the main line of action in which it is embedded. The regressive move that a pivot construction performs in this environment indicates to co-participants that the search is still in progress. Therefore, these constructions can be seen as one of a variety of strategies that speakers have at their disposal to interactionally manage a word search. These practices to gain search time and cover-up or gloss over a lack of access include lexical strategies and non-lexical practices, with pivots belonging to the former. They are functionally similar to recycling strategies in that they repeat previous lexical items. Unlike recycling strategies, however, which mark the connection to prior talk disjunctively (the repeats are commonly bounded by cut-offs), pivot constructions provide a way of repeating elements in a syntactically continuous fashion and thus present a less marked way to gloss over a continuing lack of access and gain more processing time. When used at the end of the search process, mirror-image constructions seem to serve a different function. They are employed as a syntactic strategy to mark the end of the subsidiary activity by connecting back to previous talk. Backwardlooking moves are common closing strategies: It has been observed that expressions of conventional wisdom, proverbial and aphoristic formulations, summaries and overall assessments of the previous talk function as topic bounding techniques (Button 1987; Button & Casey 1985; Drew & Holt 1998; Holt & Drew 2005;



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

Jefferson 1978, 1984; Maynard 1980; 2007:  186; Schegloff & Sacks 1973). Similar strategies (reiterations of arrangements, ‘reasons-for-call,’ ‘thank you’s) are recurrently used for conversation closing (Button 1987:  149, 1990; Button & Casey 1985; Schegloff & Sacks 1973). By reissuing prior talk, speakers suggest that there is nothing further to add to the current conversation and thereby propose a subsequent move into closing. Topic bounding and conversation closing techniques share a backward-looking orientation. Syntactic pivots which exhibit a mirror-image construction seem to function in a similar way, albeit on a different organizational level: While closing techniques like those listed above operate on the level of topic and overall conversational structure, pivot constructions work on the level of syntax. After a word search sequence, the retrieved item is used as a departure point to reissue lexical elements and thus marks the action as completed. In modified (mirror-image) constructions, the pre-pivot and post-pivot structures exhibit lexical and structural differences: The post-pivot structure may carry out a different action or convey a different epistemic stance. In the examples discussed in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.5, interactants use these types of pivot constructions at the end of word searches and the pivot element is always the item that was the target of the search. Thus, after having recovered an item of the type projected but not readily available, speakers immediately include this item (the outcome of the search) in the syntax of a new action. Such “resumption practices” are essential in determining the function of pivot constructions as marking the boundary between two activities: Previous research has shown that incorporating the outcome of a subsidiary activity into the subsequent or main activity is one way of indicating that the subsidiary activity has come to completion (see Hayashi 2004 on post-positional case particles used to close side sequences in Japanese). In a pivot construction, this shift is particularly smooth: A transition from one syntactic construction to the next and the shift from the word search to the subsequent activity occurs within a shared element. This element is simultaneously the outcome of the previous search activity and the departure point for a next activity. Within one TCU, a speaker may initiate and carry out a search and mark the end of the search by incorporating its outcome into a subsequent activity. The immediate next activity need not constitute a resumption of the main activity or trajectory of the turn put on hold. As Section 5.2.5 illustrates, a speaker may use a syntactic pivot strategy to provide a commentary on the activity just engaged in (a type of post-completion or self-confirmatory remark) before picking up the main line of action. In the remainder of the chapter, I will discuss representative examples of pivot constructions used in word searches. The examples are grouped according to the relative position within the word search sequence in which they occur: within the

 Pivots in German Conversation

search process (5.2.2) or at the end of a search (5.2.3). In the latter position, the use of both mirror-image constructions, which signal the end of a search, and modified (mirror-image) constructions, which may additionally reframe the searchedfor element, will be discussed. Section 5.2.5 then presents a specified strategy used after a completed search. By employing a fixed expression in the post-pivot structure, a speaker may identify the just-previous action as actually having involved a search for a word, thus bringing to the interactional surface what may have gone unnoticed. The data for this chapter come from a collection of 43 examples of pivot constructions used in word searches. 17 of these examples stem from Colloquial German conversations (4 face-to-face, 13 telephone) and 26 from interactions in Siebenbürger Sächsisch (7 face-to-face, 19 telephone). 5.2.2  Doing searching: Gaining time during a search As discussed above (Section 5.2.1), pivot constructions are ideally suited as a tool for extending the search process and thus gaining processing time to retrieve the searched-for item. In this function, they appear to be one of a variety of verbal and non-verbal resources speakers can employ during a word search (e.g., averted eyegaze, self-addressed questions, filled pauses, hesitation markers, repeats). They occur before the projected item is found and thus indicate to the co-participant(s) that the speaker is still actively engaged in searching. Consider the following example, in which Tina, Eva, Andreas, and Martin are talking about differences between Northern and Southern German dialects (see also segment (4.8)). Martin and Tina have collaboratively collected different lexical variants for the word “piglet”. Andreas, who had claimed to be unfamiliar with most of the words Tina and Martin mentioned, provides an overall assessment of his co-participants based on their topic of discussion (line 2), thus proposing a closing of the sequence and topic (Button 1987; Button & Casey 1985). In line 3, Tina initiates a new topic. (5.5)

WS_C1ˉdialekteˉ1ˉ(Champaign_C_A1)ˉ[face-to-face;ˉnoˉvideoˉdata]

1 M: schweinderrlˉ((smileˉvoice,ˉrolledˉr)) piglet 2 A: ihr seids ja wahnsinnig, ey you-2ppl are prt insane, prt man,ˉyou’reˉinsane 3 T: .H des geilste war mal, da war ich in (.) ich .H the coolestˉthing was prt, then/prt was I in (.) I .Hˉtheˉcoolestˉthingˉwas,ˉ(when)ˉIˉwasˉinˉ(.)ˉI

The preposition in projects a place name or descriptive location referent next. This referent is not produced by Tina at the point at which it is due in the unfolding



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

syntactic structure of the turn. Instead, a micro pause occurs after in, which suggests that Tina might be having trouble finding or producing the projected item (Butterworth & Beattie 1978; Golato 2000b; Schegloff et al. 1977: 367). The troublesource, thus, is a not-yet uttered NP, the repair classifiable as forward-looking, i.e., a word search. This analysis is supported by the next items Tina produces (segment (5.6)): After the micro pause, she restarts the construction and recycles the subject and verb of the sentence-in-progress (lines 3–4). (5.6)

WS_C1ˉdialekteˉ1ˉ(Champaign_C_A1),ˉcontinuationˉofˉsegmentˉ(5.5)

→ 3 T: .H des geilste war mal, da war ich in (.) ich .H the coolestˉthing was prt, then/prt was I in (.) I 1. .Hˉtheˉcoolestˉthingˉwas,ˉ(when)ˉIˉwasˉinˉ(.)ˉI → 4

war ja: n-e zeitlang war ich in=äh <ºwarte mal wie hieß was prt: a- while was I in=uh <ºwait prt how was wasˉf-orˉaˉwhileˉIˉwasˉin=uhˉ<ºwaitˉwhatˉwas



5

die stadt,º> (0.2) ä::m (1.0) tsk! 〈LAndshut.〉 named theˉtownº> (0.2) u::h (1.0) tsk! 〈((townˉname)).〉 theˉnameˉofˉtheˉtownº>(0.2)ˉu::ˉhˉ(1.0)ˉtsk!ˉ〈LAndshut.〉



6

(.)





7 M: [>ja.< ] [>yes.<ˉ]

[

8 A: [hehe [hehe



] ]he[he ]he[he

9 T:ˉ

[ºinº [landshut. ] [ºinº [landshut. ] [ ] 10 E:ˉ [.hHHHhˉ((laughter/noisyˉinbreath)) ] [.hHHHh ] 11 A: tiefstes bayern.=häh? ((softˉspoken)) deepest bavaria.=huh? darkest bavaria.=huh?

The next element in Tina’s turn expands the sentence in progress. The particle ja (line 4) carries information on epistemic stance: it marks the talk as “assumed to be mutually shared” (Möllering 2001). Tina invokes a shared background concerning this part of her past experience and therefore shared knowledge of the searched-for item. She may thus be appealing to co-participants for help in her search for the place name or alert them to their status as possible participants in the search. The sound stretch on ja, accompanied by the delay in producing the determiner n-e indicates the speaker’s continuing engagement in the word search.

 Pivots in German Conversation

The adverbial phrase n-e zeitlang is produced at a point in the turn at which the production of the searched-for item is syntactically relevant, but it does not constitute a possible solution (a place referent). It constitutes a syntactically possible TCU-internal expansion (see Chapter 2 on the German sentence brace) and thus defers the production of the projected item while upholding its projection. The further development of the turn supports this analysis: After n-e zeitlang, Tina recycles the verb war and subject ich without a prosodic break between the advp and the verb, thus producing a syntactic pivot. (5.7)

WS_C1_dialekteˉ1,ˉpivotˉstructure

ich war ja: n-e zeitlang ((incomplete,ˉprojectsˉADVPˉorˉpp)) n-e zeitlang warˉichˉinˉ...

ich war ja: n-e zeitlang war ich in ... | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivotˉ... I was f-orˉaˉwhile Iˉwasˉinˉ...

Through the pivot construction, Tina extends her current TCU, defers the relevance of the due item, and gains additional processing time. More specifically, through the pivot, she recycles material from the beginning of the search process, thereby displaying to the recipient that the search is still ongoing. She also produces an unprojected element which cannot be integrated into the current syntactic structure and can therefore not be a continuation of it. This leads to a reinterpretation of prior syntactic components within a new sentence frame and sets up a new set of projections. Thus, the use of a pivot in this interactional place, while not deleting the relevance of the searched-for item, delays it further than the addition of a syntactically integrated component could. In fact, instead of deferring the slot at which the item is due, this syntactic slot has to be newly created within the new syntactic structure (pivot + post-pivot). The earliest possible place at which the item is due again is after the verb war and the subject ich. At this point, Tina recycles the preposition in, but signals once more that the relevant item is not available to her. Hesitation markers are a common device for indexing the process of searching and typically accompany or follow indications of trouble. In more elaborate word searches and typically later in the search process, speakers may employ devices that make the cognitive process of searching even more explicit. These include “self-addressed questions for recollection” (Hayashi 2003b: 113), typically wh-questions (Golato 2000b: 5; Jefferson 1972: 302). In the segment at hand, Tina combines a ritualized directive (warte mal) with the whquestion wie hieß die stadt (lines 4–5). She thereby (1) explicitly categorizes the type of item that is searched for as the name of a town, (2) verbalizes the continued problem of access, (3) indicates that this problem is a temporary one, i.e., that the



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

name of the town is normally available to her,83 and (4) manages the participation framework for this activity. Tina is either involving to the co-participants as aids in the search or continuing to signal that this is a solitary search.84 The searched-for item is now syntactically (and pragmatically) embedded in a different way: While it was previously due as the continuation of a sentence in progress, it is now relevant as an answer to a question. After further delays (line 5), Tina finally produces the name of the town with falling intonation, which suggests finality; thus, LAndshut is produced as the actual solution to the search. The outcome receives an acknowledging ja from Martin, probably indicating recognition since he is from a town in the region, and two assessments from Andreas (lines 8, 11). In providing talk that is touched off by Tina’s solution to the repair and thereby moving the sequence forward, Tina’s co-participants indicate that they also perceive the search as closed. When speakers are in the process of searching for a word, pivot constructions can be used to extend a structure in progress to gain search or processing time. When in the process of retrieving the not-yet-available lexical item, speakers have a number of resources available to structure the participation framework for the search-in-process, that is, to signal to the co-participant(s) that the search is still ongoing and to invite the recipients’ continued attention to the activity. Syntactic pivot constructions merge two possibly independent structures (sentences, clauses, phrases) and thus present a strategy that allows the speaker to extend the turn-attalk. Within the process of searching for a word, they present an “unmarked” way to gain time. As we observed in the example above, such a construction also allows the speaker to insert further (background) information while signaling a continued engagement in the search. 5.2.3  Done searching: Signaling the end of a word search In this section, I discuss pivot constructions employed to signal the end of a word search. The examples discussed below include both mirror image constructions (Section 5.2.3.1) and modified (mirror-image) constructions (Section 5.2.3.2) in which the outcome of a search is used in a different subsequent action. I argue that the former mark the end of a search, while the latter signal the completion of

.  On the social dimension of displaying lack of knowledge and its implications for issues of face, see Auer and Rönfeld (2002) and Rönfeld and Auer (2004). .  This issue cannot be unambiguously solved, because the participants’ gaze orientation is not available for this segment. However, the markedly quieter delivery of the directive warte mal and the question wie hieß die stadt suggest that these elements are self-directed rather than in the service of enlisting the co-participants’ help.

 Pivots in German Conversation

the search and reframe the searched-for element. I will present examples of both from different varieties of German. While no strategic differences emerged in the use of pivot constructions across varieties of German, I will point to some grammatical differences between varieties that result in differences in the structure of self-repair practices. 5.2.3.1  Mirror-image constructions In data samples (5.8) motorradunfall, (5.9) frau ulrich and (5.11) strassenbahnlinie, a pivot construction is used to signal the completion of a search for a name or kinship term, as in (5.8) and (5.9), or a geographical location, as in (5.11). All three are examples of mirror-image structures in which the pre-pivot structure is syntactically incomplete and the pivot element (and thus the search operation) is relatively short. The search process is initiated by a cut-off and the search process itself marked by sound stretches and lexical recycling. The successful outcome of the repair is marked – and the repair closed – by employing a pivot construction. Speakers then resume the main line of action to bring the turn to completion. Consider first instance (5.8). Xaver has just inquired about the progress of Markus’s aspired degree (line 1), which leads to talk about Markus’s recent motorcycle accident (lines 7–9) and an extended telling by Markus of his family’s reaction to the accident (lines 14–18). During this telling, Markus displays trouble in continuing his turn (line 15): He abandons the construction in progress to insert background information about his parents, more specifically about the attitude towards his riding a motorbike that they had before the accident. (5.8)

WS_C3ˉmotorradunfallˉ[129_Oregon1A_480]



1 X: und was macht dein:: phd? and what does your:: phd? andˉhowˉisˉyour:: phdˉgoing?

2 M: ä-=ich hab im:=äh hab ich hab ich dir da uh-=I have in:=uh have I have I you then uh-=Iˉhaveˉin:=uhˉdidˉIˉdidˉIˉwr↑iteˉtoˉyouˉat 3

geschr↑ieben zu der zeit? im janu- im februar, wr↑itten at that time? in+the janu- in february, written at that time? in+the janu- in february,



(.)

4

5 X: ja= yes= 6 M: =da [hat =then [ha [



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 



7 X:ˉ 8

[da hatteste diesen: dieºsen (weißscho) diesen [there had+you this: thiºs (know+prt) this [backˉthenˉyouˉhadˉtha:tˉthaºtˉ(you/Iˉknow)ˉthat

koºmischen ↑unfall. weiºrd ↑accident.



9 M: AH=u den- den den motorradun↓fall=ja.= prt=u the- the the motorcycleˉacci↓dent=yes.= OH=u the- the the motorcycleˉacci↓dent=yes.=

10 X: =ja ja. =yes yes.

11

(0.7)

12 M:ˉ mtsk ja d [asˉwar- ] mtsk yes th [atˉwas- ] [ ]

13 X:ˉ

[ motor]radfahren ist gefährlich. ((mocking)) [ motor]cycleriding is dangerous. [ riding]ˉyourˉmotorcycleˉisˉdangerous.



14 M: das war: ähm und meine (.) das war natürlich wiede:r=>äh< that was: uhm and my (.) that was ofˉcourse aga:in=>uh< thatˉwas:ˉuhmˉandˉmyˉ(.)ˉthatˉofˉcourse=>uh<

15

→ 16



wasser auf die mühlen=weil .hh ºje- e- jetzº bis (0.1) water on the mills=because .hh ºno- e- nowº until (0.1) fannedˉtheˉflames=becauseˉ.hhˉºno-ˉe-ˉnowºˉuntilˉ(0.1) BIs zu dem unfall

m- ham meine mei- meine: ELtern

haben

unTIL the accident m- have my+pl my- my:+pl PA:rents have upˉunTILˉtheˉaccidentˉm-ˉ(said)ˉmy-ˉmy:PA:rents

*((breathy))*

→ 17

an*dauernd gesacht #ja: fahr nur vorsichtig dass da constantly said #ye:s drive prt carefullyˉso that prt constantlyˉsaidˉ#(well)ˉ(just)ˉdriveˉcarefullyˉsoˉthat

18

nichts passiert?#* .hhh oder meine mutter .h when die nothing happens?# .hhh or my mother .h whenever she



In line 16, Markus engages in a word search. After producing the prepositional phrase BIs zu dem unfall, Markus utters the first sound of a new word (possibly the determiner meine) but cuts it off to insert the verb ham before meine. He then engages in a search for the kinship term ELtern.85 This repair is initiated by a .  Rather than a lexical search for the word eltern, this is probably a search for the right term from a pair or group of (reference/kinship) terms, for example mutter, eltern, familie etc. Full lexical searches (Beattie & Shovelton 2002) and searches for foreign words or technical terms are rare in everyday interactions between native speakers (Hartog 1996; Iványi 2002; Schwartz

 Pivots in German Conversation

suspension of the syntactic progressivity and marked by lexical repeats. At the third consecutive syntactic slot at which the projected item is due, Markus produces the noun ELtern, a possible solution to the search both in terms of constituent type (a noun phrase) and in terms of morphology (plural). Following the retrieval of the noun ELtern, Markus recycles the verb haben (cf. its phonetically reduced form ham, line 16), thus rendering the the NP meine ELtern the first element of a new syntactic construction: BIs zu dem unfall m- ham meine mei- meine: Eltern ((PPT projected)) meine mei- meine: Eltern haben andauernd gesacht ((quote projected)) recycling → marks end of search word search

continuation of main sequence

BIs zu dem unfall m- ham meine mei- meine: ELtern haben andauernd gesacht up unTIL the accident m- (said) my- my: PA:rents PRE-PIVOT

PIVOT

constantly said POST-PIVOT

...

1 TCU

Figure 5.1  Closing a word search and resuming the main line of action (motorradunfall).

Through repeating the verb haben, Markus signals his return to the main sequence. The search is completed and Markus resumes the progressivity of the turn that was put on hold. The initiation of the repair, its operation, resolution, and the resumption of the previous action trajectory all fall within the boundaries of one turn constructional unit. Fragment (5.9) frau ulrich presents another example in which this strategy is used in a search for a (minimal) person reference. It is taken from a different dialect of German. Marlene (L) and Maja (M) are talking about the most recent meeting of Marlene’s “senior citizen’s club,” which is organized by her church. After mentioning at which time the pastor had to leave the meeting (line 1), Marlene shifts her focus to the actions of another group member. Here, she displays a problem in accessing a name. (5.9)

WS_S4ˉfrauˉulrichˉ[O_03_B_376]

1980). They typically occur in non-native speaker interactions (Kurhila 2006; Schwartz 1980; Seo & Koshik 2007; Willey 2001).



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 



*((breathy))*

1 L: doteam drua wech*zuch* that+he+at three away+*went* thatˉheˉleftˉatˉ*three*

2



3 L:ˉ .h



4

(.) (.)

5 L: no tr[ä=en ] huat=de: (0.3) mtsk frau 〈Ul〉rich prt th[en=prt ] had=art: (0.3) mtsk mrs ((name)) (so) th[en ] had=(the:) (0.3) mtsk mrs 〈Ul〉rich [ ]

6 M:ˉ [ºhmˉmº ]

7 L: hoträ en den noch irjendä:ster, had+then prt (prt/there) still somethi:ngˉelse, thenˉstillˉhadˉsomethi:ngˉelseˉ(toˉsay),

8

(.)

9 L: .h mer huaten drä en de:=iaster zem=e, (1.2) .h we had then prt (prt/there)=something to=uh, (1.2) .hˉweˉhadˉthenˉthe:re=somethingˉto=uh,ˉ(1.2) 10

äh rIAden.=dä (hädet en zäddel bekun:), uh tALK.=prt (hadsbjv+she a letter gotten:), uhˉtALK.=(sheˉhadˉgotten:ˉaˉletter),



(0.6)

11

12 L:ˉ .h den huatemer chio daut fertichgemAUcht, und .h (prt/then) had+we prt that ready+made, and .hˉthenˉweˉfinishedˉthat,ˉandˉthenˉthen 13

tr(i)ä den (0.5) tsk kume mer heim. then then (0.5) tsk came we home. then then (0.5)ˉtskˉweˉcameˉhome.

At the point at which a noun is due, after the article de: (line 5), Marlene does not utter the projected lexical item. Instead, she produces a sound stretch and an unfilled pause before uttering a person reference, frau 〈Ul〉rich.86 Proper names in spoken German can generally be preceded by articles. In this specific variety of German (Siebenbürger Sächsisch), the determiner before a proper name is mandatory. In other words, personal references done with proper names (including titles such as

.  It is not evident from this interaction whether or in what capacity Maja knows the third party she is referring to. Marlene may be searching for either the name or the proper recipientdesigned reference for this specific person (first name/last name/reference by kinship relation, see, e.g., Enfield & Stivers 2007).

 Pivots in German Conversation

harr/“mr.”, fra/“mrs.”, dokter/“doctor”) have to be preceded by a definite article or possessive pronoun. Therefore, fra Ulrich cannot be the beginning of a new construction after a break-off; rather, it is the NP strongly projected by the article de:. After producing the solution to her word search, Marlene continues her turn but does not resume the main sequence from the point at which she had put it on hold. Instead, she recycles several elements from the beginning of the TCU (the verb huat/hot; the adverb trä) before resuming the forward progress of the utterance with noch irjendä:ster. By recycling these previous elements through a pivot structure, she signals that the search is completed. Segment (5.10) displays the pivot structure. (5.10) WS_S4ˉfrauˉulrich,ˉpivotˉstructure trä=en huat= de: (0.3) mtsk frau 〈Ul〉rich ((+ pptˉorˉcomp)) de: (0.3) mtsk frau 〈Ul〉rich hoträ en den noch  irjendä:ster, trä=en huat=de: (0.3) mtsk frau 〈Ul〉rich hoträ en den noch  irjendä:ster, | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot |  then had=(the:) (0.3) mtsk mrs 〈Ul〉rich then still had  somethi:ng else (toˉsay),

Consider also excerpt (5.11), taken from another conversation between the same speakers. Marlene has invited Maja to visit her at her home (not in transcript). She is now explaining to her friend how to get to her home using public transportation. Although Maja is familiar with the area in which Marlene lives and accustomed to using public transportation, she might not be familiar with recent route changes that might affect her travel plans. Shell (line 2), landgrabenstrasse (line 3), FOlksfest (line 4), folksfestplatz (line 12), dutzenteich (line 8), and DOkuzentrum (lines 14, 15) are landmarks (a store, a street, three public places, and a public building, respectively). (5.11)

WS_S6ˉstraßenbahnlinieˉ[O_03-B_214]

1 M: chea yeah



2 L: dähar kitse en kit, (ken) ha bam shell from+there comes+it and comes, (to) here at+the ((name)) fromˉthere itˉcomes and comes, (to) here at shell

3



dreit se sich, .h ian de landgrabenstraße ianen, .h en turns refl it, .h in the ((name)) into, .h and itˉturns,ˉ.hˉintoˉlandgrabenstraße,ˉ.hˉand



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 



4



zocht bes .h feor den: ä- (.) FOlks ºfest.º goes till .h before themasc: uh- (.) FAIrˉ ºgrounds.º goesˉupˉtoˉ.hˉinˉfrontˉofˉthe:ˉuh-ˉ(.)ˉFAIrˉºgrounds.º



(0.1)

5



6 M: A:ˉHA. prt. I:ˉsee.

7

(0.1)

durch. .h denn em heut chia ha bam→ 8 L: feirt dä drives there through. .h because one has prt here at+the goesˉthroughˉthere.ˉ.hˉbecauseˉtheyˉbuiltˉprtˉhereˉatˉthe→ 9

.h dutzenteich hodem jo de linie gemAUcht, .h dot .h ((name)) has+one prt the line MAde, .h that .hˉdutzenteichˉtheyˉbuiltˉtheˉtramway,ˉ.hˉsoˉthatˉthey

10

se dä durchºfeuren.º they there throughºdrive.º they goˉthroughˉºthere.º



11 M: chia chia chia chia chia chia [chia ] yes yes yes yes yes yes [yes ] [ ] 12 L: ˉ [no.ˉ ]over dat hestem na [prt. ]but that calls+one prt [(so.) ]but that’s not called



13

niet det folksfest, ich menjgen na bes not the fairˉgrounds, I mean prt until the fairˉgrounds,ˉmeanˉprtˉupˉto

14

deur ºe[ne.º there ºi[n.º in thºe[re.º [ 15 M:ˉ [chia chia chia=ch[ia=chia [yes yes yes=ye[s=yes [ 16 L:ˉ [em hestet- ä- (.) DOkuzentrum. [one calls+it- uh- (.) ((name)). [one calls+it- uh- (.) DOkucenter. 17 M: mp- tchia dokuzentrum. mp- tyes ((name)). mp- tyes dokucenter.

 Pivots in German Conversation

18 L: no.= prt.=

well.=

19 M: =äh hm=hm=hm =uh hm=hm=hm

In lines 8–9, Marlene inserts a parenthetical remark (denn em heut chia … gemAUcht), which provides Maja with background information. More specifically, it provides the reason why the respective streetcar line now has a new final destination (FOlksfest, line 4). This parenthetical is acknowledged by Maja with multiples of the token ja (line 11). This suggests that the information presented is indeed not news for her and that Marlene should therefore properly stop the ongoing action (Golato & Fagyal, 2008; Stivers 2004). Marlene then returns to the main action of providing directions (line 12–14). In this turn, she initiates self-repair on her prior talk, specifically the reference FOlksfest (line 4), which she replaces with DOkuzentrum (line 16). The focus of the present analysis is Marlene’s turn in lines 8–10. Here, the speaker displays trouble in producing the referent dutzenteich. The pp bam (line 8), designed to precede a masculine or neuter singular noun, carries a cut-off and is followed by a brief filled pause. While it is not uncommon that speakers pause at a point of “maximal grammatical control” (Schegloff 1998: 241), e.g., between a preposition and the noun phrase the preposition governs, the cut-off here suggests that Marlene engages in a particular action aimed at dealing with a temporary inaccessibility of an item that is due. After she produces a (possible) solution to the search (dutzenteich), however, Marlene does not continue the utterance put on hold with the next relevant element (the ppt projected by the auxiliary heut, line 8, possibly preceded by an object), but performs a syntactically regressive move: She recycles the verb heut (line 8) and the subject pronoun em (line 8) as hodem,87 thus rendering the dutzenteich, produced as part of the previous syntactic structure, a simultaneous first element of a new construction and part of a new interactional move. The structure unfolds as follows: (5.12)

WS_S6ˉstraßenbahnlinie,ˉpivotˉstructure

denn em heut chia ha bam- .h dutzenteich (((objectˉnpˉ+) pptˉproj.)) 

(ha) bam- .h dutzenteich hodemˉjoˉde linieˉ

gemAUcht,

.  Hot and heut are phonetic variants. In hodem, the final consonant of the verb is assimilated to the initial vowel of the following pronoun (on regressive assimilation and enclitic fusion, see Kohler (1995: 207) and Schwitalla (2003: 38)).



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

denn em heut chia ha bam- .h dutzenteich hodem jo de linie  gemAUcht, | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot |  becauseˉtheyˉbuiltˉhereˉatˉthe-ˉ.hˉdutzenteichˉtheyˉbuiltˉ  theˉtramway,

Within one turn constructional unit that functions as a parenthetical insertion to the main course of action and addresses a potential epistemic asymmetry between participants regarding a piece of background knowledge (cf. T. Weber 1998), Marlene again carries out a complete word search activity: She puts the current turn on hold, signals a temporary lack of access, performs and resolves the search, and signals its completion by recycling pre-pivot elements. She then returns to the main sequence by continuing its projected forward movement. Data samples (5.8), (5.9), and (5.11) illustrate the use of pivot constructions at the end of a word search in German. The pivot construction establishes a syntactic backward-connection by recycling pre-pivot (pre-search) items, thereby signaling cohesion with the utterance which was put on hold to perform the word search (cf. Scheutz 2005). By explicitly marking this connection (as opposed to an unmarked continuation through a resumption of the utterance and action begun before the repair), the speaker “tags” the subsidiary action as complete and then resumes the main line of action. All of this is accomplished within one TCU. 5.2.3.2  Modified (mirror-image) constructions While mirror-image constructions used in word searches seem to function primarily as closing markers, modified (mirror-image) constructions used in this environment tend to have additional functions. This section presents examples in which pivot constructions are used to reframe an element of the previous talk or a previous action in addition to marking the boundary of the search. The target of repair in segment (5.13) unterrichten is a time referent. This type of search is different from the previous examples insofar as the speaker cannot be said to be looking for a word or an expression due to a temporal lack of access to the lexical item. In instances in which speakers search for a temporal expression (a date or time), they seem to be in need of more processing time to calculate a time span rather than to retrieve a lexical item (Schegloff 1979). The interactional impact and the structure of the activity, however, are similar to the examples already discussed. Markus and Oma have been discussing some financial issues. In overlap with Markus’s topic closing move in line 1, Oma selects to initiate a new topic: She inquires about her grandson’s current activities at the university at which he is employed as a teaching assistant (line 2). Her question indicates a lack of knowledge

 Pivots in German Conversation

of the academic calendar at her grandson’s university.88 Markus abandons his move toward closing (line 1) and in line 4 provides a positive answer to Oma’s question. The doubling of the token ja seems to already indicate the stance taken by Markus toward Oma’s displayed state of knowledge (Golato & Fagyal 2008): As it turns out, he has been teaching for a few weeks now (lines 6, 8), and Oma should be informed about this. Markus then specifies and repairs the time frame in question (lines 6–10). (5.13)

WS_C5ˉunterrichtenˉ[204_Oregon2B_313]



1 M: naja >wolln (mer/mal) [hoffen< dass kein notfa- ] prt >want (we/prt) [hope< that no emergen- ] (ohˉwell)ˉ>let’s just[hope< that no emergen- ] [ ] 2 O:ˉ [bist du schon beim unterrich]t↑en? [are you already cont tea]chinf? [are you already tea] ch↑ing?

3 M: .hh

4 M: ja:ja, yes:yes,

5

(.)



6 M: schon sei:t ä seit=äh ähm (.) .h anfang ok↑tober. already si:nce uh since=uh uhm (.) .hh beginning oc↑tober. alreadyˉsi:nceˉuhˉsince=uhˉuhmˉ(.)ˉ.hhˉtheˉbeginningˉof  oc↑tober.

7

(0.1)

→ 8 M:ˉ schon seit paar wochen.=>ischglaub j<etzt isses die already for coupleˉof weeks.=>I+think nIˉthinkˉn
dritte .hh moment. ä::m >.H< die dritte woche is jetzt third .hh moment. u::m >.H< the third week is now thirdˉ.hhˉwaitˉaˉsecond.ˉu::mˉ>.H< the third week is over



rum.=>ja< over.=>yes< now.=>yes<

10



11 O: .h und machste des jetzt (nun) nach der Alten. (.) .h and make+you that now (now) according to theˉOld (.) .hˉandˉareˉyouˉdoingˉthatˉaccordingˉtoˉtheˉOldˉ(.)

.  Recall (from Segment (5.2)) that Markus is a student in the US, while Oma lives in Germany. The beginnings and ends of instruction in the academic year vary between the two countries; this is therefore an appropriate question.



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 



12



schreibweise spelling spellingˉnow

At the point in Markus’s turn at which a time reference  – a day of the week, a name of a month, an np or advp expressing a time span – is due, that is, after seit/“since”/’for” (line 6), Markus displays trouble in speaking. The noun phrase anfang ok↑tober could syntactically, pragmatically, and prosodically constitute a solution to his search and the end of his turn. No uptake is forthcoming by Oma, and Markus reissues (and possibly replaces) the previous action. Schon (line 8) marks the beginning of this turn as a return to the previous TCU; schon seit paar wochen then provides an alternative answer to Oma’s question and performs a shift in focus from the discrete point in time at which he started teaching to the time period he has since covered doing this activity. Immediately latched onto this utterance, Markus specifies the expression paar wochen.89 Within this TCU, he again initiates self-repair, categorized as a cognitive search by moment (line 9), a lexical marker for self-interruption in German (Egbert 2002a: 83; Schegloff 1987c: 72, 81). The retrieval of the correct information (rather, the upcoming outcome of the calculation) may be signaled by the sharp in-breath following ä::m90 and involves recycling back to the phrasal level of the constituent under construction (Fox et al. 1996, 1997b; Uhmann 2001). After the possible solution to the search, which also constitutes the possible syntactic and pragmatic completion of the main turn in progress, Markus continues his turn by recycling of the verb is used at the beginning of the current TCU (line 8, isses). The verb is added without a prosodic break after woche, thereby rendering the outcome of the previous search the first element of a new syntactic structure and the second TCU of the turn a syntactic pivot construction: (5.14)

WS_C5ˉunterrichten,ˉpivotˉstructure

>ischglaub j<etzt isses die dritte .hh moment. ä::m >.H< die dritte woche ((complete)) die dritte .hh moment. ä::m >.H< die dritte woche isˉjetzt  rum.

.  Unlike the English “a couple,” the pronoun “paar” is always indefinite. Thus, (ein) paar wochen it is not used to refer to exactly two items, but rather to an unspecific (small) number of weeks. This is in contrast to the measurement noun (ein) Paar/“a couple,” which is used to specify exactly two items, but can only precede items that “naturally” occur in pairs (e.g., shoes) (Wermke, Klosa, Kunkel-Razum & Scholze-Stubenrecht 2001). .  Compare the tongue click employed in (5.6) dialekte 1, line 5, and (5.9) frau ulrich, line 5.

 Pivots in German Conversation >ischglaub j<etzt isses die dritte .hh moment. ä::m >.H< die dritte woche is jetzt  rum. |-------ˉpre-pivotˉ--------| |----------------------ˉpivotˉ---------------------| post-pivot| >Iˉthinkˉn.H<ˉtheˉthirdˉweekˉisˉoverˉnow.

As with the examples involving mirror-image type structures, I argue that the speaker uses a pivot construction, specifically its property to recycle previous elements in a syntactically continuous way, to signal that the subsidiary activity is completed. It can be argued here that there is a need for Markus to overtly signal the completion of the search and thus his readiness to “resume the forward progress of utterance construction” (Hayashi 2004a: 358), which could be a return to the main line of action or a move to a new topic. The need to overtly mark the end of the search may be motivated by the relative complexity of Markus’s larger turn, which involves several instances of repair on the same time referent. The use of the pivot construction in (5.13) may thus reflect a need to “insure and stabilize textual cohesion [by] repeating neighboring parts of the utterance which preceded the problematical section” (Scheutz 2005: 120). At the same time, it signals the end of the search (124). Unlike the examples discussed in Section 5.2.3.1, example (5.13) does not constitute a mirror-image construction (see Chapter 2). The pre-pivot+pivot structure is possibly syntactically complete. However, in the post-pivot structure, the speaker does not resume the main sequence to bring a yet incomplete syntactic structure to completion. Markus does mark the post-pivot talk as a resumptive move (through the recycling of the verb), but then performs a correction of the pre-pivot talk: He respecifies the time reference. Thus, while marking the local word search as completed by recycling the verb is in the post-pivot structure and using the outcome of the repair as part of a new action, the pivot construction also serves to expand the larger repair operation (pinning down a time reference) and to respecify the pivot element. This respecification is then “self-confirmed” by the speaker Markus (ja, line 10). The turn and action is now complete. The pivot construction in (5.13) exemplifies a combination, both in pivot structure and repair type, of what Scheutz (2005: 123–126) discusses as two distinct types of pivot constructions in the context of repair (“procedures related to the pivot itself ” vs. “procedures related to the periphery,” each corresponding to specific repair types). In (5.13), the pivot TCU illustrates repair procedures targeting both the pivot itself (word search) and the periphery (reframing of the pivot element).



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

In the next data samples (5.15), the post-pivot structure again accomplishes the double task of marking the end of a subsidiary action and reframing the pivot element. In (5.15), however, the result is a complete shift in action. Gabi is reporting on a recent telephone conversation with her sister Helga. An invitation had been extended by Gabi’s daughter Erna to Helga’s son Bert to visit her abroad. Gabi is trying to convince Helga to cover her son Bert’s expenses, particularly the transatlantic airfare. After suggesting that Helga pay for the ticket (line 5), Gabi provides her with a quote based on a similar trip her own son Daniel had taken (line 6). She also offers practical general advice on how to buy affordable airfare (lines 8–30) and underscores the importance of the right airline (lines 18–21). (5.15)

WS_S2ˉflugˉnachˉamerikaˉ[M_05-B_217]

1 G: tä hunich k(h)ent helga gesät DAU helga HI:R; then have+I t(h)o ((name)) said YOU ((name)) LI:STEN; soˉIˉsaidˉt(h)oˉhelgaˉ(now)ˉhelgaˉLI:ˉSTEN;



2

(.)



3 G: .hh det ge- erna hoden iageluaden. .hh the pre- ((name)) has+him invited. .hhˉpre-ˉernaˉinvitedˉhim.

4

(.)



5 G: .hh host dau niche far↑hangdert euro↑ >hun ich gesät<, .hh have you no four↑hundred euro↑s >have I said<, .hhˉdon’tˉyouˉhaveˉfour↑hundredˉeuro↑sˉ>Iˉsaid<,

6



druahangdertachtenenjzich euro, hod aus gang ge↓zo:lt, threehundredninetyeight euros, has our boy ↓pa:id, threeˉhundredˉninety-eightˉeuros,ˉourˉboyˉ↓pa:id,



(.)

7



(...)



12 G: wa zem baspial iam sommer over um kriastoch du wun like for example in+the summer or on christmas then when likeˉforˉexampleˉinˉtheˉsummerˉorˉonˉchristmasˉ(then)ˉwhen

13



nau de letch flejen, prt the people fly, allˉpeopleˉfly,



(0.2)



14

15 M: ºm[mmº ] [ ] 16 G: [.h du ]n ias niedesi deier. [.h th ]en is notˉso expensive. [.hˉth]enˉ(it’)sˉnotˉsoˉexpensive.

 Pivots in German Conversation

17

(0.3)



18 G: .h uch trä kuste j- mieste ja niet miat der ha .h and then can+you prt- must+you prt not with the ha .hˉandˉthenˉyouˉcanˉ(asˉyouˉkn-)ˉyouˉdon’tˉhaveˉtoˉ(as  youˉknow)ˉflyˉwithˉha→ 19

luftHAnsa flejen, te kust chia miat der=we::: fly, you can

prt

königliche:n

with thefemˉwuh::: roya:l



((name))



luftHAnsa,ˉyouˉcanˉwithˉ(the)ˉwuh:::ˉroya:l

→ 20

el: - ka el em↑91 ias der daniel ge↑fluachen, miat el:- kay el em↑ is the ((name)) ↑flown, with el:ˉ-ˉkayˉelˉem↑ˉdanielˉ↑flew,ˉwith

21

der os holl↑and nä? thedem from holl↑and prt? theˉoneˉfromˉholl↑and,ˉyouˉknow?





22 G: [(0.4) ] [ ] 23 M: [(°mhm°)] 24 G: .hh no? .hh right?



25

(0.4)

26 G: .h trä, .h then, 27 (0.1)

28 G: mhˉhmˉhhh



29

(.)



30 G: iaset niet esi deier. is+it not so expensive. it’sˉnotˉsoˉexpensive.

Gabi marks her turn in line 18 as another piece of advice on what to do, then cuts off the structure-in-progress to provide a suggestion of what to avoid doing (i.e., book a flight on an expensive carrier, which Gabi considers lufthansa, line 19, to be). After returning to the previously abandoned construction, Gabi displays trouble in finding a next noun (phrase) due, as evidenced by the non-lexical

.  KLM is the name of an airline based in the Netherlands. The acronym KLM (ka el em/“kay el em”) stands for Dutch Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappig/German königliche Luftfahrtgesellschaft/English, literally, royal air travel company (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines). The fact that some, but not all, of the Dutch acronym can be derived due to the closeness of Dutch and German (the speaker does not know Dutch) is important for the ensuing discussion of the strategies employed by Gabi during the search process.



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

hesitation marker we::: (line 19). She produces the beginning of a potential (and grammatically possible) solution to the search, königliche:n el:, a mix of the full name (königliche:n/“roya:l”) and the acronym (el: /“L”) for the airline. This solution carries features of hesitation and is abandoned after the second item (line 20). In her second attempt to produce the noun due, Gabi utters the complete acronym ka el em/“KLM”. Rising intonation on em marks the TCU as non-final (suggesting that this item is offered for confirmation or recognition by the co-participant (cf. Goodwin & Goodwin 1986; Willey 2001 on try-marking)); it is also grammatically incomplete. After uttering the searched-for item, however, Gabi does not produce the still relevant infinitive, but, using miat der . . . ka el em as a departure point, extends the TCU in a syntactically unprojected way. The structure of the turn and TCU emerges as follows: (5.16)

WS_S2ˉflugˉnachˉamerika,ˉpivotˉstructure

te kust



chia miat der we::: königliche:n el:- ka el em↑ ((projectsˉINF))



miat der we::: königliche:n el:- ka el em↑ iasˉderˉ



daniel ge↑fluachen,

te kust 

|

chia miat der we::: königliche:n el:- ka el em↑ ias der

pre-

daniel gefluachen,

|----------------pivot------------------------|post-pivot|

ˉyouˉcan withˉ(the)ˉwuh::: roya:l el:- kayˉelˉem↑ daniel ↑flew,

Similar to segment (5.13), the stretch of talk in which the shift from one structure to the next occurs encompasses a search activity, with the post-pivot elements following the resolution of the search. After the pivot TCU, no further talk relevant to this repair operation is produced. Gabi continues with an understanding check designed for Maja as an interlocutor potentially unfamiliar with the acronym KLM. As outlined in Section 5.2.1 and shown in the preceding example, a speaker may mark a word search as closed by using the now-retrieved item in a next turn or new action. In flug nach amerika, the speaker uses a pivot construction in which the prepivot+pivot structure involves a word search. The searched-for item is produced at the end of this structure as the outcome of the repair activity. At the same time it is part of a new structure and action (as represented in Figure 5.2). By using the outcome of the first action (word search) in a second, the word search is marked as closed. The pre-pivot + pivot structure (the projected non-finite verb is provided in double parentheses) constitutes another recommendation in a list of tips by Gabi on how to obtain the most inexpensive air fare. By offering advice, Gabi constructs herself as the more knowledgeable interactant regarding the matter at hand. Her trouble

 Pivots in German Conversation

in finding the name of a specific airline presents a potentially face-threatening activity (as do searches for names in general, Auer & Rönfeld 2004; Rönfeld & Auer 2002) and may undermine a claimed epistemic authority. The activity carried out in the pivot + post pivot structure seems designed to address just this issue. By referring to a third party, Gabi establishes a basis for her recommendation and thereby backs up her claim of being knowledgeable (see also line 6). pre-pivot+pivot: suggestion/claim

te kust chia miat der we::: königliche:n el:- ka el em ↑ ((flejen/'fly')) miat der we::: königliche:n el:- ka el em ↑ ias der daniel gefluachen,

pivot + post-pivot: support for claim

Figure 5.2  Accomplishing an action shift within one TCU (flug nach amerika).

Thus, parallel to a structural shift, Gabi performs a shift in action from the prepivot to the post-pivot phase structures. She shifts from giving advice or making a recommendation to providing (second-hand) experience. The experience she cites serves as positive evidence for the validity of her advice and, simultaneously, as a basis for her claim to be in a position to give advice in the first place (it is her son’s experience). The use of a pivot construction allows her to combine both of these actions in one TCU. 5.2.4  Preliminary summary The discussion in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 has shown that speakers use syntactic pivot constructions in the activity of searching for a word. When used in these contexts, their interactional functions are position-sensitive. Moreover, it seems that different types of pivot structures associate systematically with different functions. During a word search, pivots serve to delay the relevance of a projected item and thus to “buy” the speaker processing time. Typically, mirror-image constructions are used in this function. At the end of a word search, speakers use both mirror-image structures and modified (mirror-image) structures. Mirror-image constructions used at the end of a search serve to mark the completion of the subsidiary activity and to smoothly resume the main sequence, while modified (mirror-image) constructions fulfill additional interactional functions. In the examples of modified (mirror-image) constructions discussed in Section 5.2.3.2,



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

interactants combine two possibly independent constructions that may also differ in the action or epistemic stance conveyed. The pivot element in such constructions, when used at the end of a word search, is always the item that was the target of the search. This element is then included into the syntax of a new construction. By using the outcome of a first action as the departure point for a second action, a speaker not only signals the end of the previous activity, but may also reframe the shared element (as in segment (5.13)) or the previous action (as in segment (5.15)) within the same TCU. The next section will present one specialized method to accomplish a substantial shift (in perspective, stance, or action) within a pivot construction. The construction involves the use of a fixed expression in post-pivot position. It seems limited to searches for proper names and serves to manage (potential) problems in recipient design. 5.2.5  Did searching: Verbalizing the just prior action as a search Data sample (5.15) has demonstrated that the use of a pivot construction at the end of a word search can be concurrently motivated by several factors: At the same time as it is employed to mark a subsidiary activity as completed, it may be used to reframe the previous action and thus facilitate changes in stance, action, or participation structure. This section discusses modified pivot constructions that carry out a specialized type of reframing of prior talk. In all of the examples presented below, the post-pivot structure is occupied by a variant of the expression heißt das/“it’s called.” Similar to the data discussed in Section 5.2.3, these pivots mark the search in which the speaker had just engaged as closed. Additionally, however, they clearly identify the just-previous action as actually having been a search for a word in the first place. In other words, with this specific type of pivot construction the speaker accomplishes a retroactive framing of the prior action as a cognitive search, thereby exposing a productional problem. Additionally, I will argue that the use of a pivot construction in these environments is coupled with issues of recipient design, thus exposing the negotiation of potential receptional problems. All examples involve the search for a proper name. In instance 5.17, Ina is telling her friend Markus about her job search. She lists the applications that are still pending, one of them for a position in a journalism school (lines 3–4). Before Ina can produce the name of the employer (projected by fürn/“for a”, line 7), however, Markus initiates repair on this specific referent (lines 7–8). After the successful resolution of this trouble,92 Ina continues with the main .  See Golato and Betz (2008) for a discussion of the token achso/“oh I see” as marking a successful repair outcome.

 Pivots in German Conversation

sequence by providing additional information on the company (lines 12–13) and the specific position for which she applied (not displayed). (5.17) WS_C4ˉrheinalleeˉ[164_Oregon2A_043] 1 I: könnt ich mir vorstellen. could I refl imagine. Iˉcouldˉimagineˉ(that). 2 M: mh hm mh hm → 3 I: .hhh also das hab ich noch=HHH und dann hab ich noch: .hhh prt that have I also=HHH and then have I also: .hhh soˉIˉalsoˉhaveˉthat=HHHˉandˉthenˉIˉalsoˉha:ve → 4

ähm (0.2) t.hh bei ä-ä-
→ 5

für wirtschaftsjournalisten.>=heißt des. da war for businessjournalists. >=is+named that. there was forˉbusinessˉjournalists.>=isˉwhatˉitsˉcalled.ˉthereˉwas

6

AUch ne anzeige in der zeitung, .hh Also an ad in the paper, .hh

7 ähm:: für [n volontariat] uh::m for [a internshipˉ] [ ] 8 M:ˉ [.H 〈des is (do-) auf der] rheinallee oder?〉 [.H 〈that is (prt-) on the] ((street)) or?〉 [.Hˉ〈thatˉisˉonˉthe ]ˉrhinealleeˉno?〉

9

(0.5)

10 I: nee: des is in düsseldorf. [°glaubich°ˉ] no: that is in ((city)). [°believeˉI°] no:ˉthatˉisˉinˉdüsseldorf. [°Iˉbelieve°] [ ] 11 M: ˉ [achˉso. ] [prtˉso. ] [ohˉIˉsee. ] 12 I: .hhh ähm das i- das is diese- son verlag für .hhh uhm that i- that is this- such+a publisher for .hhhˉuhmˉthatˉi-ˉthat’sˉthis-ˉlikeˉaˉpublisherˉfor 13

für verschiedene wirtschaftszeitungen .h 〈de em:〉 und ... for various business magazines` .h 〈((title))〉 and ... for various business publications .h 〈dm〉 and ...

Ina engages in a word search at the beginning of this new segment in her larger telling about the job search process (lines 3–5). She has just completed elaborating



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

on another potential employer and closes this “sub-topic” with das hab ich noch (line 3), which simultaneously projects another item to come in her list of current applications. However, the projected name of another potential employer or description of another position is not available to Ina when it is due, and she initiates selfrepair (lines 3–4). After the pause in line 4, Ina produces a preposition, bei/“at”/“to”, a move which forwards the current turn and also specifies the item projected. Ina is clearly engaged in a forward-looking repair operation. When Ina retrieves the searched-for item (georg holzbrink (.) schule für wirtschaftsjournalisten.), its delivery is markedly slow, as if to indicate that its production requires additional cognitive (and possibly productional) effort. The retrieval of the searched-for item is not followed by a continuation of the telling-in-progress – the “unmarked” way of resuming the progressivity of the turn after engaging in a word search or other side sequence (see Section 5.1.3). Instead, it is followed by a meta-comment (Rönfeld & Auer 2002) on the just performed search. This additional repairrelated talk constitutes a syntactic and prosodic extension of the prior unit. It unfolds as follows: (5.18) WS_C4ˉrheinallee,ˉpivotˉstructure und dann hab ich noch: ähm (0.2) t.hh bei ä-ä- 〈georg holzbrink (.) schule für wirtschaftsjournalisten.〉 ((ppt orˉcomp))

〈georg holzbrink (.) schule für wirtschaftsjournalisten.〉       =heißt des. und dann hab ich noch: ähm (0.2) t.hh bei ä-ä- 〈georg holzbrink (.) schule für wirtschaftsjournalisten.〉       =heißt des. |----------pre-pivot----------| |-----------pivot-------------    | post-pivot | and then I also ha:ve uhm (0.2) t.hh at uh-uh- 〈georg holzbrink (.) school for business journalists.〉 =is what  it’s called.

The recovered noun phrase is followed by a verb. While journalisten is uttered with final falling intonation, it is in such close proximity to the verb heißt that even “the slight gap of silence which commonly intervenes between one unit and another” (Schegloff 1987a: 104) is deleted. Moreover, the turn so far is syntactically incomplete. This renders the np, the object of the preposition bei in the previous (unfinished) construction, the subject of a new construction with the verb heißt in sentence second position. It is thus the shared element in a syntactic pivot construction.

 Pivots in German Conversation

This pivot construction is employed at the end of a search. By using the outcome of the search as the starting point and part of a new syntactic structure, the speaker marks the search as closed. This function is further evidenced by the following details in the interaction: At the end of this extended TCU, the speaker produces no more talk on the source of this repair (the company name) but returns to the main sequence (further detailing the process of finding and applying for this position, lines 5–6). The recipient hears the search as closed and the item found as its actual solution: He initiates repair to confirm his recognition of the item (line 8). Hence, the pivot closes and is heard as closing the word search. This, however, is not the only function the pivot construction seems to serve here. In addition to closing the activity of searching, the speaker provides a comment on the just-completed action. By “adding” heißt des after the possible completion of her TCU and action, Ina characterizes the action in which she has just engaged as a search for a name and thereby verbalizes an internal process of searching. In this example, there are other indicators in the ongoing turn that provide the co-participant with means to identify the ongoing action. Commentaries by participants on their own actions become particularly interesting when they bring to the conversational surface an action that was not necessarily visible for the co-participant(s). The next two data samples ((5.19) merenge and (5.21) bar one) will further illustrate the structure and placement of such pivot constructions in environments in which the search process is not clearly marked. Markus, who is an exchange student in the US, and Xaver, who lives in Germany, have been discussing recent developments in the lives of common friends. In line 1, Markus inquires about new developments in the city’s nightlife, exposing an assumption that changes must have taken place during his time in the US. He thereby provides Xaver with a ticket to a telling (Sacks 1974, 1986). In lines 12–13, the focus of analysis, Xaver engages in a search for the name of a new club. (5.19)

WS_C2ˉmerengeˉ[30_Ingo1B_264]



1 M: oke:; ºgut.º welche KNEIpen sind dennˉgrade in. oka:y; ºgood.º which BArsˉare prt at+the+moment in. oka:y;ˉºgood.ºˉwhichˉBArsˉareˉtrendyˉatˉtheˉmoment. 2 X:ˉ HHH[HH ] [ ] 3 M:ˉ [hehe]he seid ihr immer noch viel im esprit? [hehe]he are youpl still a lot in+the ((nameˉofˉbar))? [hehe]heˉareˉyouˉstillˉatˉespritˉaˉlot?

4

(.)



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

5 X: ne: da geh ich eigentlich gar nich mehr rein. no: there go I actually int not anyˉmore in. no:ˉIˉactuallyˉdon’tˉgoˉ(in)ˉthereˉatˉallˉanyˉmore.

6

(0.3)

7 X: ich=eh irgndwie=eh (.) >eh< ...ˉ I=uh somehow=uh (.) >uh< ... ... ((parenthetical aboutˉthe activities of a common friend omitted))

→ 12

ich_ geh jetz viel ins A:pex_ und=eh (0.1) da I_ go now aˉlot in+the ((name))_ and=uh (0.1) there I_ˉgoˉtoˉA:pex_ˉaˉlotˉnowˉand=uhˉ(0.1)ˉnowˉthere

→ 13

gibts



isˉhereˉlikeˉaˉmeRE:ngeˉit’sˉcalled.=(that)’sˉtheˉold

14

.hhh äh (0.5) º>AH ((breathy)) wie hieß das noch. na: .hhh uh (0.5) º>AH ((breathy)) how was+named that prt. prt: .hhhˉuhˉ(0.5)º>AH((breathy))howˉwasˉthatˉcalledˉagain.ˉprt:

15

weiß ich jetz gar nich wie das früher hieß.º hh da auf know I now int not how that earlier named.º hh there on Iˉdon’tˉknowˉnotˉhowˉthatˉearlierˉnamed.ºˉhhˉthereˉon



der ecke auch wo s apex is da the corner also where the ((name)) is there theˉcornerˉalsoˉwhereˉtheˉapexˉisˉthere





16



hier jetzt son

gives+it here now

meRE:nge heißt

such+a ((name))

das.=is des alte

is+named that.=is the old

17 M: ja,



yes,

18 X: ä:h und=äh achhh so [(de- de-)]= u:h andˉuh prthh like [(th- th-)]= u:hˉandˉuhˉOHhhˉlike [(th-ˉth-)]= [ ] 19 M:ˉ [PEGASUS?]= [((name)) ]= [PEGASUS?]=

20 X: =ABer nichts NEUES irgendwie_ nichts



=BUt nothing NEW

=BUt nothing NEW

somehow_ somehow_

großartig neues.

nothing extraordinarily new. nothing new really.

21 M: ºah so.º ºprt so.º ºoh Iˉsee.º

After reporting on the outing habits of a common acquaintance (omitted from transcript), Xaver mentions a club called Apex (line 12). Level intonation marks

 Pivots in German Conversation

this unit as prosodically incomplete; a second item of the same category (i.e., the name of another bar Xaver frequents) and thus a larger activity of constructing a list is projected prosodically (Selting 2004a, 2007b), and syntactically (und, line  12, cf. Jefferson 1990). Instead of producing a next item in a list, however, Markus displays production trouble and performs a syntactic restart with da. His use of the determiner son (line 13) also seems to index a search process: so/“such” + ein(e)/“a” usually precedes a common noun and renders it a category expressions. Thus, the use of the determiner son at this point projects a common noun, not a name, and this, as well as the previous projection of another name of a specific club, indicates that Xaver will produce a category noun which subsumes the specific place to which he cannot refer by name. Using a category or membership term may present a strategy similar to providing descriptions or circumscriptions of a searched-for item (Rönfeld & Auer 2002:  83).93 After producing the name meRE:nge, the word search is potentially complete. However, Xaver extends his turn with the expression heißt das: (5.20)

WS_C2ˉmerenge,ˉpivotˉstructure

und=eh (0.1) da gibts hier jetzt son meRE:nge meRE:nge heißt das. und=eh (0.1) da gibts hier jetzt son meRE:nge heißt das. | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | and=uhˉ(0.1)ˉnowˉthereˉisˉhereˉlikeˉaˉmeRE:ngeˉit’sˉcalled.

As in (5.17), a syntactically potentially complete TCU is extended by a phrase that cannot constitute a continuation of the previous structure. This extension renders the solution to the search a syntactic pivot element. The second structure (pivot+post-pivot) consists of new lexical material and topicalizes the activity just performed: It indexes it as having involved a temporary lack of access to a proper name. In other words, the pivot+post-pivot structure not only closes the search, but also brings the just completed action and the involved cognitive processes to the interactional surface. After the pivot TCU, the speaker continues with the main sequence: Using landmarks as shared referents, he describes to his co-participant the location of the new bar. Consider also segment (5.21). Here, the search only becomes recognizable as such through the meta-comment provided within the syntactic frame of a pivot structure. Again, it is a place name that is the object of the search. Markus is telling his friend Thorsten about his most recent weekend activities, specifically about

.  See examples (5.17) rheinallee, line 12, and (5.21) bar one, lines 7, for other examples of this strategy.



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

going out to clubs in Los Angeles. He refers to a corner on Sunset Boulevard where there are a number of bars and where, on one of Thorsten’s past visits, the two friends had spent time together. Markus describes the corner as a place where diese schwarzen rocker/“those black(-clad) bikers” were always hanging out (not in transcript). This first description provides the basis for a second reference that occurs in the following data segment (lines 4–5, diese schwarzen kerle). In reference to the places they saw together, Markus explains to Thorsten to which club he went just recently. As in the previous examples, the speaker may deal with a temporary lack of access to a place name here, specifically the term bar one (line 7). (5.21)

WS_C9ˉbarˉoneˉ[Ingo_2B_156]



1 M: da isses total cool. .hh [un- ] da: sin there is+it totally cool. .hh [un- ] the:re have it’sˉtotallyˉcoolˉthere.ˉ.hh [an- ]ˉthe:re [ ] 2 T:ˉ [ja:, ] [ye:s,] 3 M: wa jetz mal so drin gewesen in einem=so in den we prt prt like in been in a=like in the weˉwereˉprtˉprtˉlikeˉinsideˉinˉa=likeˉinˉthe-



4 M: aBA: DAS WAR, .h (.) also nich wo diese sch<warzen bU:T THAT WAS, .h (.) prt not where these blgehn.=aba:=h ehm[:h ] (.) da nebenan guys there: in>go.=bu:t=h uhm[:h ] (.) there next door guys go (i:n)>.=bu:t=h uhm[:h ] (.)next door to it [ ] 6 T: ˉ [ja: ] [ye:s] → 7 M: da war so ne andre bar one hieß die:, und= there was such another bar one was+named tha:tfem, and= there was like another bar one it was ca:lled, and=

8 T: =ja= =yes=

9 M: =wa- swar echt swar echt ziemlich gut. =wa- it+was really it+was really pretty good. =wa-ˉthatˉwasˉreallyˉthatˉwasˉreallyˉprettyˉgood.

10 T: (ja hört sich ganz interessant an alles) (prt sounds refl int interesting pre everything) ((well)ˉsoundsˉprettyˉinterestingˉallˉthat)

In the TCU that includes the searched-for item, there is little indication that Markus is engaging in a word search. There are indicators in the preceding talk,

 Pivots in German Conversation

however (line 5). The source of trouble is not clear: Markus may be dealing with problems in retrieving a name or with difficulties in finding the appropriate reference form for his co-participant (recipient design).94 That Markus might have been navigating trouble in word formulation only becomes clear with the addition of the “meta-comment” hieß die/“that/it was called” (line 7). As in the previous two examples, this extends the turn-in-progress, respecifies the retrieved item, and reframes the previous action. (5.22)

WS_C9ˉbarˉone,ˉpivotˉstructure

da nebenan da war so ne andre bar bar one hieß die:, da nebenan da war so ne andre bar one hieß die:, | pre-pivot |pivot| post-pivot | nextˉdoorˉtoˉit there was like another bar one itˉwasˉca:lled,

Similar to examples (5.17) rheinallee and (5.19) merenge, the syntactic pivot construction in bar one serves to mark the end of a search (by using the just-recovered item in a new syntactic frame and action), while at the same time reframing the just-previous action as a search for a name or formulation that requires additional cognitive effort on the part of the the speaker. In this example, the search process is not otherwise marked, and indicators for trouble (retroactively identifiable as related to a search) are interactionally further removed from the trouble source. The syntactic strategy described in this section presents a resource for speakers to comment on and thereby reframe a prior element and the type of activity in which they just engaged. This specified function of a pivot construction seems to correspond to a specific type of pivot construction. This type of pivot differs from the constructions that are typically used in word searches (as discussed in Section 5.2.3.1) in several respects: 1. The right periphery is always a variation of the same phrase, the verb heißt/ “is called” and the 3psg demonstrative (das/des/“that”), thus constituting a “fixed” or “prefabricated” (Norén 2007: 366) construction. 2. The pivot+post-pivot structure does not repeat any element from the left periphery, and it performs a radically different action from the pre-pivot+pivot structure.

.  Note the parenthetical remark also nich wo diese schwarzen kerle da: reingehn (lines 4–5), which is designed to exclude a not-yet-attempted but possible understanding of Markus’s reference. This evidences the relevance of Thorsten’s background knowledge (and Markus’s assumptions about it) for word formulation in the emerging description.



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

3. The pivot element itself fulfills different syntactic functions in each structure. While in the pre-pivot+pivot structure, the pivot element is either a direct object (as in (5.19) and (5.21)) or an object of a preposition (as in (5.17)), it functions as the subject in the pivot+post-pivot structure. While such shifts in sentence-level function can be found in pivots in other interactional environments (see Chapter 6), they are comparatively rare. Pivots instantiating them may be limited to environments in which speakers do more than manage the boundaries between actions (claim vs. backing of claim) and different types of actions (subsidiary repair vs. main line of action) in the hierarchy of interwoven actions. They may be specifically employed to manage boundaries between different actions and meta-talk about prior talk or activities, cognitive states, or the communicative situation, that is, boundaries between different levels of action. However, more research is necessary to establish whether this correlation between syntactic structure and levels of text organization is systematic. The discussion of data presented in this section has centered on the productional aspect of lexical formulation on the part of the speaker.95 However, there seem to be additional factors involved in the negotiation of word formulation here, and these concern the receptional side of word choice, i.e., recipient design.96 In all examples of “heißt das”-constructions, the pivot element is (part of) a proper name. Proper names are a prototypical example of recognitional reference forms (Sacks & Schegloff 1979). It is therefore notable that in all instances in my collection, co-participants are not familiar with the referent in question: In (5.17), the co-participant’s attempt at displaying recognition is unsuccessful; in (5.19), the coparticipant is clearly constructed by the speaker as the unknowing party through the use of jetzt (line 13); in (5.21), the co-participant does not indicate any independent access to the referent in his assessment of the telling (line 10). It may well be that the speaker shows orientation to this fact through adding the post-pivot “is what it’s called.” The pivot+post-pivot, then, not only works to potentially exposes a search, but also corrects a reference formulation, thereby turning a recognitional reference form into a non-recognitional one, designed for the specific uninformed co-participant at that unique interactional moment.

.  Compare Norén (2007: 346) for a discussion of Swedish heter/“is called” in post-pivot position. Norén describes heter as a resource to parenthetically “establish and confirm the right expression,” for example after self-repair. Other interactional strategies that serve to recast the prior talk (a prior turn) as a different action or syntactically reframe it are described for Japanese in Hayashi (2004a) and Tanaka (1999; 2001). .  I would like to thank Makoto Hayashi for directing my attention to this.

 Pivots in German Conversation

The database for this section does not include examples from all investigated varieties of German. I could not observe this or a similar strategy of using a pivot construction to frame or reframe a previous action as a cognitive search or for correcting a reference formulation in Siebenbürger Sächsisch. This could well be due to the size of my collection, because the heißt das-strategy is overall not common. Additionally, the construction is specialized and lexically invariable and may therefore simply not be available to speakers of Siebenbürger Sächsisch in the interactional environments discussed above.

5.3  Discussion While the previous two chapters (Chapters 3 and 4) focused on syntactic pivot constructions as a resource within the organization of turn taking and of topic organization, this chapter focused on pivot constructions in the organization of repair, specifically self-initiated self-repairs. In word searches, syntactic pivot constructions present speakers with a strategy to extend a syntactic structure in progress in an unprojected, yet most unmarked, way and thereby to fulfill local interactional needs that arise at distinct points within a word search activity. The present discussion has shown that pivot constructions, with their three-part form and formal flexibility, allow for varying syntactic relationships between the central pivot element and the peripheries. Hence, such constructions present a very adaptable strategy for speakers to manage transitions between different actions or levels of activities, thus marking interactional boundaries, and to adjust to local interactional demands, for example changes in participation structures. In word searches, speakers use different types of pivot constructions at different places in the activity of searching for a word. Pivot constructions can be used to extend a TCU to gain additional search or processing time while the search is still in progress (Section 5.2.2). Overwhelmingly, however, pivot constructions are used to extend a TCU past the point at which the searched-for item has been retrieved, that is, at the possible end of a word search (Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.5). Here, pivots serve to mark the search as closed and to resume the main line of action. Alternatively, they serve to mark the end of a search and simultaneously reframe an aspect of the prior talk or the prior action. As an example of the latter, I discussed one specialized strategy: “heißt das”-constructions (Section 5.2.5). This strategy involves the use of a fixed expression in the post-pivot structure and a proper name as the pivot element; it serves to retroactively characterize a previous action as a search for a word and/or to orient to the inadequacy of the chosen reference formulation. I noted that his strategy is not available in all varieties of German. Thus, the analyses in this chapter not only showcase systematic similarities in the use of pivot constructions



Chapter 5.  Searching for a word 

as an interactional resource across varieties of German, but also highlight some differences. These result from syntactic (see fragment (5.10)) or from lexical variation (see Section 5.2.5) and lead to differences in the availability or structuring of interactional resources. The present analysis of pivot constructions in the environment of word searches sheds more light on the structure of word searches in German. Specifically, my findings confirm previous research on self-repair and on word searches in German (Fox et al. 2006; Golato 2000b; Uhmann 1997a, 1997b, 2001) by illustrating the types of initiations used, the scope of recycling, and different levels and types of resources within the search process (lexical vs. non-verbal; substantial vs. ritualistic components). I expand previous research in this area by showing that its findings (on the scope of recycling, for example) are transferable to a yet-undocumented variety of German, Siebenbürger Sächsisch. Moreover, my discussion extends to aspects of the organization of word searches in German that have so far received little attention: the role of sentence-level resources in the organization of this type of repair and the use of search-internal resources such as place holders (prospective indexicals, category expressions) and meta-comments. Lastly, I have found that pivot constructions are also implicated in negotiating problems of recipient design by enabling a modification in reference form (from recognitional to non-recognitional) within one TCU. This finding adds to work on reference formulation in German (Auer 1979, 1981, 1984). This chapter focused on self-repairs and showed that speakers use pivot constructions as a strategy for managing word searches. However, it has also become apparent that speakers use these constructions to carry out various other kinds of modifications on their own talk within one TCU. The next chapter (Chapter 6) will broaden this analysis by presenting pivot constructions as a practice for correcting one’s epistemic stance and/or action in an embedded way.

chapter 6

Pivot constructions in embedded self-correction Changes in action and epistemic stance 6.1  Introduction 6.1.1  P  rocedures to deal with problems in interaction: Exposed vs. embedded correction There are different strategies that speakers have at their disposal to specify, modify, or correct an already-produced item. They may interrupt their own utterance in the middle of or just after having produced the trouble source and thereby initiate self-repair within the ongoing turn. They may also interrupt the forward-progress of the sequence after the possible end of the turn containing the trouble source, thereby initiating transition-space or third turn repair (Egbert 2002a; Schegloff 1992, 1997; Schegloff et al. 1977). Repair, as defined by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977), denotes instances in interaction where the current action or sequence is put on hold and speakers deal with a repairable in the prior talk or with trouble concerning not-yet-produced items.97 After the trouble is resolved, interactants return to the action or sequence that was put on hold. Thus, in order to define a phenomenon or interactional practice as “repair,” it is essential that it constitutes “overt efforts to deal with trouble-sources or repairables – marked off as distinct within the ongoing talk” (Schegloff 2007: 100–102, emphasis added). The correction or modification of an element in one’s own (or another’s) turn, however, does not always involve an exposed repair operation; it may also be carried out through procedures that are “embedded” within another action (Jefferson 1987; Mandelbaum 2005). For example, transition space repairs may be done as separate TCUs, but they also commonly take the shape of structural additions

.  It is important to note that repair encompasses a variety of phenomena (including replacement, correction, modification, specification, forward-looking searches etc.) and is not contingent upon an “error” or “mistake” having occurred.

 Pivots in German Conversation

to the previous TCU and may then be termed “turn expansions” (Auer 1996a). However, not all rightward turn expansions that correct, specify, or modify a previous item constitute instances of repair (Mandelbaum 2005). Such expansions may correct prior talk but still forward the current sequence or action. For the pivot constructions discussed in this chapter, the same holds true: Within the pivot turn, a speaker produces problematic talk and corrects it, but the pivot turn is not occupied with “doing repair” as its primary business, and the operations in which speakers engage using pivots constructions therefore do not constitute instances of “repair” as defined by Schegloff et al. (1977). Hence, in the discussion of the data, I will refer to the procedures I observe as “modifications,” “changes,” or “embedded corrections,” not as “repair.” This discussion will be taken up again in the concluding remarks after the data analysis (Section 6.3). 6.1.2  The target of self-correction Conversational procedures to preempt or resolve trouble in speaking target pronunciation, word formulation, or lexical access (see Chapter 5). They can, however, also serve to modify the epistemic stance conveyed; that is, a speaker may correct his attitude towards an action, an event, or a piece of information. Lastly, they can target the type of action carried out in the turn. This holds true for exposed and embedded self-corrections (cf. Mandelbaum 2005 for an account of one specific function). In this chapter, I will describe how pivot constructions can be used to express a change in epistemic stance or to alter (modify, retract, replace) a carried out or projected action. They may take various forms: A modification of a speaker’s epistemic stance can be brought about by adding or dropping lexical items (notably modal particles such as ja or doch in German, which are involved in conveying affective or epistemic stance), by lexical or grammatical modifications or corrections (e.g., changes in the modality of the verb), or through the choice of syntactic formats (e.g., certain types of question formats which convey epistemic stance, Koshik 2005). A modification or shift in a speaker’s action may consist of a back down from or an attempt to reverse the prior action. I will discuss instances in which speakers use a pivot construction to carry out such modifications in the structural periphery of the pivot TCU; that is, in the transition from the prepivot+pivot to the pivot+post-pivot structure. The goal of this chapter is twofold: Firstly, I will show that pivot constructions are systematically used to bring about shifts in epistemic stance or action by performing changes in the periphery of the pivot construction. I first look at pivot constructions in which speakers modify the modality, mood, or tense of the verb (Section 6.2.1). I then turn to examples in which speakers perform a shift in sentence format, i.e., between interrogative and declarative formats (Section 6.2.2).



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

I show that both types of pivot constructions are used to orient to problems in alignment, recipiency, or affiliation (recall that the pivot constructions discussed in Chapter 3 and some examples presented in Chapter 4 also involved managing problems in recipiency). Secondly, I will provide a detailed description of some structurally and sequentially complex examples of grammatical shift in order to show the reflexive relationship between syntactic structures and interactional practices. My aim is to showcase how speakers use language-specific grammatical resources to restructure a turn and the development of the talk. I will also demonstrate how interactional factors such as the co-participants’ conduct, changes in participation structure, and emerging context information, impact the syntactic structure of a turn in real time. The data for this chapter come from a collection of 26 examples, 11 of which are from interactions in Siebenbürger Sächsisch. All are instances of telephone interactions.

6.2  Pivot constructions as a resource for embedded self-correction 6.2.1  C  hanges in verb quality: Corrections involving announcements and informings In this section, I examine one specific type of grammatical modification speakers undertake in a pivot construction: changes in verb quality (modality, mood, or tense). Specifically, in each of the following examples, a speaker respecifies the prepivot verb phrase (vp) by introducing or dropping an auxiliary (a form of müssen/ miesen/“to have to”, kienen/“to be able to” or warden/“will-inf”) in the post-pivot vp. I argue that speakers thereby accomplish a reframing of the action carried out in the pivot turn to better suit the immediate interactional goals, for examples to strengthen an argument or support a claim. In all examples in my collection, speakers use such pivots in informings and announcements, both in initiative and responsive turns. These may serve to provide an account, make an assertion, reject an accusation, refute or counter a challenge, or confirm a candidate understanding. Speakers perform these actions by expressing more epistemic security about the information conveyed, by providing accounts of their own or third-party experience or evidence, or by providing the source or basis of a knowledge claim. Hence, by using a pivot construction, a speaker can – within one TCU – make a claim and support it, assert a position or epistemic stance and strengthen it, or provide an account and strengthen its credibility. The first data segment ((6.1) garten) presents an interaction in which a pivot is used to accomplish this “double duty” in the service of countering a challenge. In example (6.3) flug nach amerika, the speaker performs a shift in verb modality

 Pivots in German Conversation

and thereby strengthens a knowledge claim in the environment of a word search. In (6.5) helga in ungarn 2, the speaker transforms a supposition into a prognosis through a pivot construction. Kirsten and Heiner have been discussing perceived differences in work hours between Germany and the US. This prompted Kirsten, who lives in the US, to diagnose Americans as “working too much” (not in transcript) and to announce that her American husband returned home from work unusually early on a recent Friday afternoon (lines 2–7). She then launches into a telling about their weekend activities (lines 9–10). When Heiner provides no uptake, Kirsten expands her turn (lines 12, 13). Thus, the beginning of Kirsten’s telling already indicates possible trouble in alignment between the two interactants. (6.1)

C23ˉgartenˉ[84_Kirsten1A]



1 K: .hhh u::nd ähm kent hat auch dat ganze wochenende .hhh a::nd uhm ((name)) has also the whole weekend .hhhˉa::ndˉuhmˉkentˉalsoˉhasˉtheˉwholeˉweekend

2 K: freitach kam er schon früher nach hause? friday came he already earlier home? (on)ˉfridayˉheˉcameˉhomeˉearlierˉalready?

3

(.)



4 K: kam er schon um halb fünf nach hause, came he already at half five home, heˉcameˉhomeˉatˉhalfˉpastˉfourˉalready,

5

(.)



6 K: ganz unjewöhnlich int unusual veryˉunusual 7 K: .hhhhh [hi hhh] .hhhh [he hhh] [ ] 8 H:ˉ [he he ] [hu hu ]

9 K: u:nd dann ä:h aber jetz ham wer dat janze a:nd then u:h but now have we the whole a:ndˉthenˉu:hˉbutˉnowˉweˉworkedˉtheˉwhole 10



wochenende am haus jearbeitet, weekend on+the house worked, weekendˉonˉtheˉhouse,



(.)

11

12 K: wie verrückt. like crazy.



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

13 K: .hhh[hh am garten ] .hhh[hh on+the garden ] .hhh[hh onˉthe garden ] [ ] 14 H:ˉ [ ja sach mal] wann is denn euer haus mal [ prt say prt] when is prt your house prt [ (say/tellˉme)]ˉwhenˉisˉyourˉhouseˉ(goingˉtoˉbe) 15



fertich. done. doneˉ(atˉlast).

garten mussten wir → 16 K: is ja ↑fertich↑ wir (machn/ham) am is prt ↑done↑ we (make/have) on+the garden had+to we (it)ˉisˉ↑done↑ˉweˉ(make/have)ˉinˉtheˉgardenˉweˉhadˉto → 17

arbeiten;=bei uns [war ne HEcke krank ] work;=at ours [was a HEdge sick ] work;=oneˉof our [HEdgesˉwasˉsick ] [ ] 18 H: [ich hab gedacht (er/ihr) macht ne ] [I have thought (he/youpl) make afem ] [Iˉthoughtˉ(he/you)ˉareˉbuildingˉa ]



19



bierterasse dacht

beerdeck

ich macht ihr

thought I

[noch

make you+pl [still

beerˉpatioˉIˉthoughtˉyouˉare [stillˉbuilding



[



[.H prt thatfem is do:ne=



20 K:ˉ



21



=d-er biergarten. =th-eMASK beergarden. =th-e beergarden.



(.)

22

[.H ah die

is fertich:=

[.H (oh) that one’s do:ne=

23 H: ach=siehste, prt=see, oh=whoˉwould’veˉthought,

In line 13, Kirsten expands her turn and replaces am haus (line 10) with am garten. In overlap with Kirsten and touched off by her mentioning of work on the house, Heiner initiates an inquiry (line 14). This inquiry is done as a complaint or possibly a challenge. In other words, Heiner might be fed up with hearing about work on their house, and he is accusing Kirsten and her husband of having turned building their house into a never-ending project (thus possibly implying that they never get anything finished). That Kirsten actually hears Heiner’s question as

 Pivots in German Conversation

a challenge is evidenced by her rejection of its basis: The particle ja (line 16) highlights the discrepancy between current fact and Heiner’s displayed knowledge (Helbig 1988; Möllering 2001), while the repeat of fertich (line 16), coupled with the use of contrastive stress and high pitch seems to mark it as a correction (Heritage & Raymond 2005; Koshik 2005; Schegloff et al. 1977). Kirstin also provides an account for rejecting the grounds of Heiner’s challenge (lines 16–17). In this turn, she corrects her prior talk: Kirsten had earlier attempted a correction of am haus (line 10) with am garten (line 13), but her turn was overlapped by Heiner. Thus, in lines 16–17, Kirsten accomplishes two things simultaneously: She provides an account and redoes a prior action. What is more, her account is couched in a syntactic pivot construction. (6.2)

C23ˉgarten,ˉpivotˉstructure

wir (machn/ham) am garten ((incomplete,ˉprojectsˉobjˉorˉppt)) am garten musstenˉwirˉarbeiten; wir (machn/ham) am garten mussten wir arbeiten; | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | we (make/have) inˉtheˉgarden weˉhadˉtoˉwork;

As this structure emerges, Kirsten changes an informing of what she and her husband did into an informing of what they had to do and why. She achieves this by modifying the verb phrase: wir (machen/ham) is replaced by wir mussten … arbeiten. Thereby, Kirsten both accounts for and strengthens her rejection of Heiner’s grounds for a challenge (i.e., it is not that they can’t ever finish work on the house; unforeseen events forced them to do this work) within one TCU. In the following turn (line 18–19), Heiner initiates a second round of confrontation by using a different line of attack. He challenges Kirsten’s claim of being “finished” (line 16) with work on the house by citing a previous interaction (ich hab gedacht, line 18; dacht ich, line 19). Another rejection by Kirsten ensues (line 20–21), the basis for which is nicely fitted to the alternate strategy Heiner employed: Kirsten rejects his challenge by classifying the state of his knowledge as outdated. The confrontation seems resolved when Heiner receipts this information as news (line 23), although his turn clearly marks surprise (and likely disbelief) through siehste. In the above example, a speaker refutes a challenge launched by her coparticipant by using a pivot construction. The structural changes that occur in the shift from pre-pivot to post-pivot contribute to the local communicative goal: The speaker strengthens her position within the larger activity of arguing a point by invoking external forces as motivation for her actions. This strategy is used in the next data segment as well. In segment (6.3) flug nach amerika, the speaker draws on third-party experience to strengthen the credibility of an assertion and thereby back-up a knowledge claim. This example has already been discussed



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

in Chapter 5 (see segment (5.15) for a detailed description of the larger interactional context). Gabi reports on a conversation with her sister, in which she offers practical travel advice by underscoring the importance of choosing the right airline for keeping costs low (lines 18–21). She thereby constructs herself as knowledgeable on the topic of air travel. In lines 19–20, Gabi has trouble retrieving the name of a major European airline, KLM. This constitutes a potentially face-threatening activity (Auer & Rönfeld 2004; Rönfeld & Auer 2002) that may undermine her claimed epistemic authority. She uses a pivot construction (highlighted below) in the process of retrieving the airline name. (6.3)

S17ˉflugˉnachˉamerikaˉ[M_05-B_217],ˉmodifiedˉ(seeˉex.ˉ(5.15))



16 G: .h dun ias niedesi deier. .h then is notˉso expensive. .hˉthenˉ(it’)sˉnotˉsoˉexpensive.

17

(0.3)



18 G: .h uch trä kuste j- mieste ja niet miat der ha .h and then can+you prt- must+you prt not with the ha .hˉandˉthenˉyouˉcanˉ(asˉyouˉkn-)ˉyouˉdon’tˉhaveˉto (as ˉ  youˉknow)ˉflyˉwithˉha→ 19

luftHAnsa flejen, te kust chia miat der=we::: fly, you

can

prt

königliche:n

with thefemˉwuh::: roya:l



((name))



luftHAnsa,ˉyouˉcanˉwithˉ(the)ˉwuh:::ˉroya:l

→ 20

el:- ka el em↑ ias der daniel ge ↑fluachen, miat el:- kay el em↑ is the ((name)) ↑flown, with el:-ˉkayˉelˉem↑ˉdanielˉ↑flew,ˉwith

21

der os holl↑and nä? thedem from holl↑and prt? theˉoneˉfromˉholl↑and,ˉyouˉknow?





22 G: [(0.4) ] [ ] 23 M: [(°mhm°) ] 24 G: .hh no? .hh right?



25

(0.4)

26 G: .h trä, .h then,

27



28 G: mh hm hhh



29

(0.1)

(.)

 Pivots in German Conversation

30 G: iaset niet esi deier. is+it not so expensive. it’sˉnotˉsoˉexpensive.

The specific point at which Gabi uses the pivot construction is crucial to the larger course of action of advice giving. Gabi shifts from making a claim to establishing a basis for her claim by referring to the experience of a third party, thereby backing up her knowledge claim. Structurally, the speaker achieves a shift from “claiming” to “backing up” within one TCU through a shift in the modality of the verb used in the periphery of the pivot construction (see Chapter 5, Figure 5.2). The type of modification in this pivot TCU resembles that described in (6.1) garten. However, while in (6.1), the verb is reframed by adding a modal (muss, see (6.4a)), the initial framing through a modal (kust) is dropped in the present example (see (6.4b)). (6.4)

VPˉmodificationsˉinˉ(6.1)ˉgartenˉandˉ(6.3)ˉflugˉnachˉamerika

a. garten:ˉ‘weˉhaveˉ((worked))’/‘weˉareˉmakingˉ…ˉ’ˉvs.ˉ‘weˉhadˉtoˉwork’ wir (machn/ham) am garten mussten wir arbeiten; | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | we (make/have) in theˉgarden weˉhadˉtoˉwork;

b. flugˉnachˉamerika:ˉ‘youˉcanˉ((fly))’ˉvs.ˉ‘heˉhasˉflown’  te kust 

chia miat der we::: königliche:n el:- ka el em↑ias der

daniel ge↑fluachen, ----------------------------|  |------ post-pivot---|  youˉcan with (the) wuh::: roya:l el:- kay el em↑ daniel ↑flew, |

pre-pivot

|-----------------

pivot

In constructions of the type (a), an external agency (i.e., an outside force or third party, as is the case in other examples in my collection) is invoked as motivation for the speaker’s actions. Speakers accomplish this reframing of an action, and thus the strengthening of an account, by using the modal “must.”98 In the present example (6.4b), the pivot is used in a turn designed to make a recommendation, as evidenced by the framing of the verb in the pre-pivot. The shift from the modal “can” to the non-modified verb also equals a shift in strength of assertion, i.e., a strengthening of the epistemic security expressed: The experience which Gabi cites now serves as positive evidence for the validity of her advice, thereby reinstating a basis for constructing herself as knowledgeable. The use of a pivot construction allows Gabi to counteract the threat to her position as knowledgeable within the same TCU in which this threat materializes. In all examples in my

.  See Chapter 2, segment (2.14) germanistik, for another example of this kind.



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

collection, speakers perform a shift from stating plans to expressing obligation or necessity, or from stating a possibility to stating facts. They do so overwhelmingly by modifying the modality or mood of the verb. However, in a small number of examples in my collection, a speaker modifies the verb tense in the transition from the pre-pivot to the post-pivot structure. The next data excerpt exemplifies this type. In (6.5) helga in ungarn 2, the pivot turn occurs within an extended account: The speaker advocates her position toward–rather, her interpretation of–an event. The structural modification that occurs within the periphery of the pivot structure again results in a change in the epistemic stance expressed by the speaker. The data is taken from another phone conversation between Gabi and her mother Maja. Maja had expected her daughter Helga (and Helga’s family) to return from a vacation abroad the night before the conversation (line 9). Helga, however, has not returned yet (lines 4–5), as several unsuccessful tries to phone her suggest (reported in lines 5–6, 15–16, 18, 20–21). I provide a lengthy excerpt in this instance to be able to show that the pivot turn not only performs a shift in epistemic stance, but also occurs at a key position in the development of the larger sequence of actions. (6.5)

S8ˉhelgaˉinˉungarnˉ2ˉ[O_04-A_179]

1

(0.8)

2 G: no: chi:a. prt: prt:. (ohˉwell.)



3

(.)



4 G: no.=OS helga sie schi kU? prt.=OUR ((name)) have already cOME? (so.)=hasˉ(our)ˉhelgaˉreTURnedˉalready?

5 M: tchwis niEt, ich hu nachten ↑ugerofen thot tI+know not, I have lastˉnight ↑called there+has tIˉdon’tˉknow,ˉIˉ↑calledˉlastˉnight 6

↓niemest geimfert ↓nobody answered



7 G: no tä siese noch nie: ku:. (well) then are+they not ye:t co:me. (well)ˉthenˉtheyˉhaven’tˉreturnedˉye:t.

8

(0.3)



9 G: se sulen nau ku nachten ba:.=esi. they should+past prt come lastˉnight.=isn’tˉthatˉso. (now)ˉtheyˉshould’veˉcomeˉlastˉnight.=right 10 M: mhm, mhm,

 Pivots in German Conversation 11 G: ähä, uhˉhuh,

12

(.)

13 G: chia=chia. yes=yes.

14

(0.5)



15 G: ja se sien trä noch bestiemt niet ku=suenst trä yes they have then yet forˉsure not come=or else yesˉthenˉtheyˉdefinitelyˉhaven’tˉreturnedˉyet=otherwise

16



had iamest geimfert. had somebody answered, somebodyˉwouldˉhaveˉansweredˉ(theˉphone),



(0.5)

17



18 M: t.hh [thot nie]mest geimfe[r:t ] t.hh [there+has no]body an[swered] t.hh [ no]body an[swered ] [ ] [ ] 19 G:ˉ [chia chia] [ äh]ä=ähä. [yes yes] [ uh]huh=uhˉhuh.

20 G: uch wunet wer kun hAdet chia nau gestern telefonIErt and if+she had come had+she prt prt yesterday telephoned andˉifˉsheˉhadˉreturnedˉsheˉwould’veˉ(ofˉcourse) 



21



telephoned yesterday

denn (.) gestern wor chia nau siangduch. because (.) yesterday was prt prt sunday. because (.) yesterday was sundayˉ(ofˉcourse).



22 M: SÄ:cher hades ugero[fe. chia >chiachia< ] ofˉCOU:rse had+she call[ed. yes >yesyes< ] ofˉCOU:rse sheˉwould’ve call[ed. yes >yesyes< ] [ ] 23 G:ˉ [no: over tias ]= [prt: but she+is ]= [(exa:ctly)ˉbutˉsheˉis ]= 24

=bestie::mt noch niet kun suenst hadet [ u]gerofe. =forˉsu::re not yet come otherwise had+she [ ca]lled. =de::finitelyˉnotˉreturnedˉyetˉorˉshe would[’ve]called. [ ] 25 M:ˉ [hm.] [hm.] 26 G: chia chia. [wa lo]ng HOdet urläf. yes yes. [how lo]ng has+she vacation. yesˉyes. [how lo]ngˉisˉsheˉonˉvacation./ howˉmuchˉtime [ ] didˉsheˉgetˉoff.



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

27 M:ˉ



28

[ [hm

] hm]

(.)

29 M: zwä w↑Oche. hh dies woch noch; two w↑EEks. hh this week still; two w↑EEks. hh (she) still (has) this week; 30 G: (ach/da) wotekit. (oh/that+one) which+comes. ohˉtheˉcomingˉone.

31

(.)

32 M: tchia. tyes. → 33 G: no filecht blEIvese chia wäede gefualt warde se ja prt maybe stAY+they prt if+it+them pleases will they prt (well)ˉmaybeˉthey’reˉstAYingˉifˉtheyˉlikeˉitˉthey’reˉgoing → 34

bl↑EI↓ve. st↑AY. toˉst↑AYˉ(weˉcanˉassume).

35 M: no wi:s=ich, dä wä dieses wader ias wot prt kno:w=I, then if thiskindof weather is what (well)ˉIˉdon’tˉknow,ˉbecauseˉifˉtheˉweatherˉisˉlikeˉthis  what

36

(.)



37 G: oh mueter e:h dä miesem ja niet aubedantj iant oh mother prt there must+one prt not necessarily in+the ohˉmotherˉyouˉdon’tˉhaveˉtoˉnecessarilyˉgoˉintoˉtheˉwater

38

wuaser gän. dä

gidet chia ualerort=te

kust miatem



water go. there exist prt

manythings=you can



there.ˉthereˉareˉallˉkindsˉofˉthingsˉ(youˉcanˉdo)=youˉcan

with+the

39

sch[i↓af f[oren oder ] sh[↓ip dr[ive or ] g[oˉon a[ˉboat or ] [ [ ] 40 M:ˉ [.hh [tä chia g]abi over (0.1) .h ä- (eh) [.hh [prt yes ((n]ame)) but (0.1) .h uh- (eh) [.hh [(well) yes g]abi but (0.1) .h uh- (to everyone)



41





42



(senjem riacht.) u- sielem

trä dä

bleiven ian der stuv=

(one’s right.) u- should+we then there stay

(one’sˉwishes.)ˉu-ˉshouldˉweˉthenˉstayˉthereˉin=

in the house=

am gElt? kiene mer ian der stuv hA: niet bleiven for mOney? can+we in theˉ house hE:re not stay forˉmOney? can’t weˉstayˉinˉhE:re

 Pivots in German Conversation 43

äne gelt. without money. withoutˉ(paying)ˉmoney.

 ((omitted: Gabi tries to convince Maja that there are numerous things one can do where Helga is vacationing, even during bad weather. Maja provides only minimal responses, indicating a lack of alignment or simultaneous attention to a competing activity.))



63

(.)

64 G:ˉ over- (.) .h Over se war det wader wird g↑AUt sie↑ but- (.) .h bUt they will the weather will g↑OOd be↑ but-ˉ(.)ˉ.hˉbUtˉtheyˉwillˉtheˉweatherˉwillˉbe↑ˉg↑OOd



65





sue:nst 〈were〉 se nau schin h↑ime ku. o:therwise 〈would〉 they prt already h↑ome come. o:therwiseˉ〈would〉ˉhaveˉalreadyˉreturnedˉh↑ome.



66 M: se:cher. su:re. ofˉcou:rse.

In lines 4–25, Gabi and Maja are speculating about Helga’s current whereabouts. While Maja initially claims no stance on the issue (line 5), Gabi concludes that Helga must have extended her vacation. She explains her position in lines 15–16 and 20–21 and then presents a supposition as the upshot of her own talk and of Maja’s alignment (line 22) in lines 23–24. Note that Gabi introduces her turn with no:/“exactly” (line 23), which serves as sequence closing third here, and then provides a modified repeat of line 20. Gabi’s next turn, then, seems to perform a shift in orientation and topic: She inquires about the length of Helga’s time off work (lines 26–32). As becomes clear in line 33, however, Gabi’s inquiry was not in the service of topic shading but constituted a continuation of the prior topic (possibly complete after Maja’s turn in line 27): Gabi reiterates her earlier conclusion (that Helga must not have returned yet or else she would have called), now framed as a positive assumption (not having returned vs. having decided to extend the stay) after having gathered further background information. The turn unfolds as follows: (6.6)

S8ˉhelgaˉinˉungarnˉ2,ˉpivotˉstructure

no filecht blEIvese chia wäede gefualt wäede gefualt warde se ja bl↑EI↓ve. no filecht blEIvese chia wäede gefualt warde se ja bl↑EI↓ve. | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | (well)ˉmaybeˉthey’reˉstayingˉifˉtheyˉlikeˉitˉthey’reˉgoing  toˉst↑AY (weˉcanˉassume).

Similar to the order of clauses in conditional sentences in English (Eisenberg 1989; Quirk & Greenbaum 1985), a subordinate conditional clause (the protasis or



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

condition) may follow or precede the main clause (the apodosis or result) in German. Hence, a subordinate conditional clause may connect two main clauses as a pivot element, as exemplified in (6.6). At the point at which Gabi’s turn is possibly syntactically complete (after chia), she extends it with a conditional clause, which then simultaneously occupies the syntactic “front field” (see Chapter 2) of a new compound sentence. The shift in syntactic structure is accompanied by modifications of the verb phrase in the periphery of the pivot element: Gabi shifts from the use of the indicative present form of the verb bleiven (se bleive/“they are staying”) to the future tense (se warde bleive/“they will stay”/“they are going to stay”). In German, the default verb form used to express a future event is the indicative present tense, while the composite future tense (werden + inf, similar to “will + inf”) is generally used to express assumptions, assertions, or probability (Lederer 1969: 97; Zifonun et al. 1997); that is, the future tense in German is restricted to expressing a specific mood of the verb. We can thus observe that the structural modifications from pre-pivot to post-pivot, while formally affecting verb tense, impact in first order the stance expressed: Gabi changes a supposition into an assertion within one TCU. Two further aspects of the pivot turn in sample (6.6) support this analysis: Firstly, it can be noted that the speaker drops the adverb filecht, a marker of epistemic insecurity, in the transition from pre-pivot to post-pivot. Secondly, the speaker uses the modal particle chia/ja in the middle field of the sentence, both in the pre-pivot+pivot and in the pivot+post-pivot structure. This particle indexes talk as “assumed to be mutually shared” (Möllering 2001; Selting 1987a). Within an assertion such as the one posited by Gabi in the pivot+post-pivot structure, this basic function of ja may be invoked to seek alignment from the co-participant (cf. also Helbig 1988: 165). Thus, the change in verb tense that occurs within this pivot construction, along with other structural alterations and properties, results in a change in the stance that the speaker expresses towards the information conveyed. This change is interactionally significant. Both the pre-pivot+pivot structure and the pivot+post-pivot structure serve to provide a probable solution to the “riddle” of where Helga may be at the moment (and thus appeasement of Maja’s worries). The first structure, however, is couched as a supposition or hypothesis and the second is phrased as an obvious conclusion. What is more, this shift of epistemic certainty conveyed through verb tense is coupled with a distinctly more assitive tone and action in the pivot+post-pivot structure. This allows Gabi’s utterance to be heard as positing what Helga and her family are not only likely to have decided to do but what they in fact should have decided to do, a position which the outcome of the just prior understanding check (lines 29–32) enables Gabi to take and ground. In other words, the pre-pivot+pivot structure expresses an assumption of what Helga

 Pivots in German Conversation

might have done, whereas the pivot+post-pivot element expresses some commonly acceptable course of action (i.e., “if you like it somewhere you extend your stay if you can”). The further development of the interaction illustrates the significance of this change in stance, as it seems to prepare the ground for a subsequent disagreement between Gabi and Maja (line 35–43). While Maja’s lack of alignment with Gabi’s supposition (lines 8–25) may already have pointed to a problem, it now becomes clear that Maja disapproves of what Gabi has established to be Helga’s actions (and, moreover, as a sensible course of action). The clear positive stance that Gabi takes toward Helga’s (assumed) actions in the pivot+post-pivot part of the pivot turn may prompt Maja to disclose her disapproving stance. Data samples (6.1) garten, (6.3) flug nach amerika, and (6.5) helga in ungarn 2 illustrate the use of pivot constructions for embedded self-correction in announcements and informings. In these examples, systematic modifications in the quality of the verb (tense, modality, and mood)99 occur in the shift from pre-pivot to postpivot. These result in corrections of the status of a proposition that describes an event (epistemic stance, epistemic security, knowledge basis, etc.). Moreover, it can be noted that these corrections co-occur with or show an orientation to problems in alignment and affiliation or issues of face. The next section will investigate such matters further. 6.2.2  Changes in syntactic format: Corrections involving inquiries In this section, I discuss pivot constructions used to perform a shift in the syntactic format or “mode” of an inquiry (i.e., between declarative and interrogative modes) in an embedded way. Structurally, these constitute a change from a wh-question or a yes/no-question to a declarative, or alternatively a shift from a declarative or a wh-question to a yes/no-question. My analysis in this section will show that such types of pivots occur at points in the interaction where speakers address problems in alignment, recipiency, or affiliation. The interactional shifts that are implemented through these pivot constructions may be self-initiated (Section 6.2.2.1) or initiated by a co-participant’s conduct (Section 6.2.2.2).

.  Examples for pivot constructions that instantiate mood changes (indicative, subjunctive, etc.) in the verbal complex were not included in this section due to space concerns. However, they occur in my data and may be interactionally meaningful in the following way: A shift from indicative to subjunctive I (for reported speech) in the context of an informing equals a shift from making a claim to providing a source for a claim, thereby strengthening a position.



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

6.2.2.1  Self-initiated shifts This section presents pivot constructions that may be categorized as self-initiated transitions between syntactic formats. That is, for all instances of this type of pivot construction in my collection, broader interactional motivations can be invoked that give the pivot turn (and the shift in epistemic stance or action which it contains) meaning within the development of the interaction. However, the selection of the specific interactional moment at which the shift occurs lies with the speaker. In other words, in none of the examples discussed in this (and also the previous) section can the shift from one syntactic construction to the next be shown occur in response to a co-participant’s action initiated while the pre-pivot+pivot structure unfolds. This stands in contrast to pivot constructions that extend a speaker’s turn to manage overlap or to deal with a competing action launched simultaneously with the beginning of a TCU or turn (as showcased in Chapter 3; Chapter 4, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1; this chapter, Section 6.2.2.2). All examples in my collection of pivot construction instantiating a shift in sentence format constitute first pair parts and all involve some type of inquiry. They occur in a variety of interactional contexts in which problems in recipiency, affiliation, or alignment surface: In segment (6.7) gorte, the speaker of the pivot turn displays a problem in recipiency and attempts to address it; in (6.9) aussuchen, the pivot turn implements a disaffiliative move (a challenge) and a back down from this move; in other examples in my collection, pivots occur at points at which the co-participants are sequentially misaligned. They serve to preempt further trouble and reestablish intersubjectivity. Segment (6.7) is taken from the very beginning of a phone conversation between Gabi (the caller) and her sister Christiane. Daku is Christiane’s husband. In lines 1 and 5, Christiane follows up on an earlier arrangement: Gabi had planned to be at Christiane’s home around the time of this conversation. Gabi does not respond to Christiane’s question. Instead, she (re)issues a complaint related to the circumstances of her call (lines 4, 6–7): The present telephone call is one in a series of tries to reach Christiane (presumably to announce that she was going to run late), but Gabi had previously only gotten her sister’s answering machine (lines 6–7). (6.7)

S7ˉgorteˉ[O-02_571]

1 C: wä biaste. where are you. where are you. 2 G: ba der muetter, with the mother, atˉmother’s,

 Pivots in German Conversation 3 C: ä mer kun ientz do:r. look we come now there. lookˉwe’reˉgoingˉthereˉnow. 4 G: mer hu schi[n, ] we have alrea[dy, ] we alrea[dy, ] [ ] 5 C:ˉ [ kis]te har? [ come]you here? [ are]you comingˉhere? 6 G: mer hu schin ugeroffen schi wievelmial,=etwor we have already called already howmanytimes,=it+was weˉalreadyˉcalledˉ(whoˉknows)ˉhowˉmanyˉtimesˉalreadyˉwe 7



ändjen dier m- mb- 〈anrufbˉeˉaˉnˉtˉwˉoˉrˉtˉeˉr〉 drUN, always that m- mb- 〈answeringˉmˉaˉcˉhˉiˉnˉe〉 ON, alwaysˉgotˉthatˉm-ˉmb-ˉ〈answeringˉmˉaˉcˉhˉiˉnˉeˉ>

ˉ

(0.4)

8

9 C: 10 G:

[mhm] [mhm] [ ] [.hh] mocht chia niast >tias ja no: nt=chia moch [.hh] makes prt nothing >it+is prt prt(and)=prt make [.hh]ˉitˉdoesn’tˉmatterˉ>it’sˉ(and)ˉdon’t

→ 11

dich niet verrückt< (.) .h hi:r.=.h ä ä: wot yourself not crazy< (.) .h li:sten.=.h uh uh: what worryˉaboutˉit<ˉ(.).hˉli:sten.=.hˉuhˉuh:ˉwhat



→ 12

13

di:- wor gäder ian de gorte? do:sg-/are:ˉ-/is: where go+youpl into the garden? do:-ˉwhereˉareˉyouˉoffˉtoˉtheˉgarden? (0.2)

14 C: °ˉno°=n↑A::↑ ech hun nau geworte sillt hA:r kun °prt°=n↑O::↑ I have prt waited+yousg should hE:re come °(well/but)°ˉn↑O::ˉ↑ˉIˉwaitedˉforˉyouˉtoˉcomeˉo:ver 15

nau sieder nimmi kun nau hummer gesät miatem prt areyoupl notˉanyˉmore come prt have+we said with+the andˉyouˉdidn’tˉcomeˉsoˉwe,ˉdakuˉandˉI,ˉsaidˉwe’ll

16

daku nau e:se mer, t(r)ä kummer zer muetter. ((name)) now e:at we, then come+we to+the mother. e:atˉnow,ˉthenˉwe’llˉgoˉoverˉtoˉmother’s.





17

(0.4)

18 G:ˉ no: ech wul nau kun, over nau nie(t) gluadienster. prt I wanted prt come+inf, but prt not just+now. Iˉdidˉwantˉtoˉcome,ˉbutˉnotˉjustˉyet.



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

Complaints such as the one uttered by Gabi in lines 6–7 locate an aspect of the co-participant’s conduct (not answering the phone/being gone when the caller was expecting one to be at home) as problematic. While complaint talk is not as tightly organized as other, more ritualized types of sequences (such as question-answer sequences, greetings, compliments; Günthner 2000b; Jefferson 1988),100 complaints do make some form of rejection or acknowledgement relevant. These second pair parts take the shape of counter-complaints, apologies, or accounts/justifications (Günthner 2000b; Yoon 2006). The acknowledgement and admittance of wrongdoing in complaint sequences is usually closing-relevant, but it may be followed by mitigations which deny or downplay the complainability of the preceding talk or downgrade the complaint itself (Robinson 2004; Schegloff 2005; Yoon 2006: 155). This type of action is implemented by Gabi in this segment (6.7): She downplays the gravity of the offense she had accused Christiane of having committed and thereby downgrades her complaint (lines 10–11). What is notable here, however, is that Gabi’s turn, which is designed as a response to an apology, is not preceded by an apology. In the interaction at hand, Gabi’s complaint in lines 6–7 receives no uptake from Christiane; a gap, not an apology, ensues. Thus, following this gap, the complaining party responds in a ritualized way to an apology that never occurred. Besides being very intriguing in its own right, this phenomenon, along with the lack of a response to Christiane’s turn in line 5, suggests problems in recipiency between the interactants. This will become important in the analysis of the pivot turn itself (lines 11–12). The interaction continues with a shift in focus (note the summons hi:r, line 11) implemented by Gabi, who inquires about Christiane’s immediate plans. However, Gabi abandons this construction in mid-sentence to restart the TCU: She maintains the sentence mode (a question), but replaces the question word, the verb, as well as the implied subject. The question is syntactically possibly complete after gäder, but it is not constructed as complete prosodically, thereby projecting a continuation. In German, the (possible) syntactic completion of a wh-questions with a simple verb is less clearly projectable than that of a sentence that exhibits a sentence brace structure (Auer 1991, 1996a; Eisenberg 1989; see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.2, this volume). This is so because in the former, the verb+subject complex can be followed by additional elements, while in sentences that exhibit a sentence brace structure, elements added beyond the right brace are considered expansions of the sentence frame. The question wor gäder (line 12) could be structurally expanded through the addition of an adverb of time, a prepositio­nal phrase, a particle, or an address term. An expansion that expresses spatial movement (e.g., “to the store”)

.  The findings on complaint talk/complainability cited in this section are based on analyses of German, English, and Korean data.

 Pivots in German Conversation

is not possible here, because the sentence starts with the question word wor/“where to,” which targets such an expression. Despite these semantic-pragmatic limitations, however, the next constituent is a PP of just this kind (ian de gorte, line 12). Hence, this PP must constitute the second constituent in a new yes/no-question (a verb first clause). This analysis is supported by phonetic design: While different phonetic parameters are deployed to facilitate the emergence of a pivot construction as one syntactic unit, certain articulatory details clearly distinguish pivots from turn continuations (see Chapters 2 and 3, Sections 2.3.2.1 and 3.1.2). The question wor gäder does not exhibit terminal falling pitch but is uttered with level intonation, thus signaling turn holding (Selting 1996a, 2000: 510). Hence, phonetic configurations in combination with syntactic properties allow for ian de gorte? to be heard as a grammatical continuation of gäder rather than a separate TCU. The clause gäder is shared between two constructions and the whole turn is hearable as a pivot construction. (6.8)

S7ˉgorteˉ[O-02_571],ˉpivotˉstructure

=.h ä ä: wot di:- wor gäder gäderˉianˉdeˉgorte? =.h ä ä: wot di:- wor gäder ian de gorte? | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | =.h uh uh: what do:- where are you off to the garden?

Segment (6.8) represents Gabi’s shift between two different syntactic constructions, an information question and a yes/no-question. This shift in format results in a shift from asking an open-ended inquiry about the co-participant’s immediate plans to providing a candidate understanding of these plans. This shift may indicate an orientation by the speaker to already having information about her interlocutor’s immediate plans. Indeed, in the pivot+post-pivot structure, Gabi attempts to reproduce previously received information (see also line 3) for confirmation; in other words, she is doing an understanding check. That this knowledge is indeed assumed by Christiane to be shared is evidenced in her response (line 14), which is delayed (line 13) and prefaced by the particle no. The emphatic rejection of Gabi’s candidate answer (n↑A: : ↑) marks surprise and thus a mismatch between Christiane’s expectations about Gabi’s state of knowledge and the knowledge Gabi is actually displaying. Christiane further underscores the unexpectedness of this epistemic asymmetry by invoking prior arrangements (lines 14–16). Thus, the use of a pivot construction in this example seems interactionally motivated by considerations of “proper recipiency,” i.e., the expectation that coparticipants attend to each other’s conduct and also shape their own conduct such that it reflects the shared interactional history. In other words, based on shared worldviews, interactional history, or immediate prior talk, interactants possess



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

knowledge about each other and the context in which the interaction occurs. This knowledge is (and should be) displayed in their talk. What co-participants assume and display (and expect others to assume and display) as shared knowledge is part of what constitutes the specific relationship between them (as intimate or formal; as friends, relatives, partners; as attentive or inattentive listeners; cf. Sacks 1992: Winter 1970, Lecture 1; Spring 1968, May 8). When one interactant’s assumptions and another interactant’s behavior do not match in this respect, this can lead to interactional trouble and may indeed be made the business of the interaction. I argue that the change in syntactic format in segment (6.7) gorte – the pivot construction used by Gabi to correct the format of her inquiry from an openended information question to a candidate understanding – is motivated by misaligned recipiency. By providing a candidate response to her own inquiry, Gabi orients to the fact that she should already have the information in question  – gained either from the immediate prior talk (line 3) or from prior arrangements (see lines 14–16). The pivot construction enables Gabi to do this shift in recipient status as structurally unobtrusively as possible: within one TCU. The next data segment exemplifies another such shift in syntactic format which enables the speaker to correct the epistemic stance conveyed. In this example, the pivot construction works to negotiate problems in affiliation. While segment (6.7) gorte exemplified a clause in pivot position, segment (6.9) aussuchen exemplifies the use of a finite verb as the central pivot element.101 Xaver has just told Markus about his upcoming wedding and honeymoon plans. He and his fiancé are planning a trip from Canada (where his fiancé’s family lives) to Costa Rica. In lines 1–4, Manuel invites Xaver to consider a stop-over in the US to visit him. Xaver acknowledges Manuel’s invitation (line 6), but defers a response (lines 5–6, 8). As is common for dispreferred responses to invitations (Schegloff 2007),102 Xaver does not reject Manuel’s invitation overtly. Instead, he offers an extended informing: He provides two different accounts of established plans that would conflict with a visit to the US (lines 8–26; line 32), thus declining Manuel’s invitation by way of offering accounts for a rejection. (6.9)

C13ˉaussuchenˉ[126_Oregon1A_405]

1 M: .hhh ja sach mal.=da-=.h da könnt ihr do- >äh-< .hhh prt say prt.=then-=.h then can youpl prt- >uh-< .hhhˉ(wellˉnow)ˉsay.=then-=.hˉthenˉ(whyˉdon’t)–>uh-<

.  For a discussion of the relative frequency of these types of pivots, see the concluding remarks in this chapter; for a “typology” of pivots, see Chapter 2. .  Invitation sequences have also been studied by, e.g., Barraja-Rohan (1994), Bernsten (2002), Davidson (1984), and Drew (1984).

 Pivots in German Conversation 2

wenn ihr so lang unterwegs seid könnt ihr doch103 when you so long onˉtheˉway are can youpl prt whenˉyou’reˉtravelingˉforˉsoˉlong thenˉ(whyˉdon’tˉyou,

3

ei:gentlich,=dann vor ↑beikommen bin ich a:ctually,=then come ↑by am I youˉknow)=comeˉ↑byˉI’llˉbe

4

ja schon wieder inner in: innen us↑a, prt already again in+the in: in+the ↑us, backˉinˉtheˉin:ˉinˉtheˉ↑usˉalreadyˉ(asˉyouˉknow),







5 M: .hhh[h [ 6 X:ˉ [jA::ˉ_ [( keiner weiß dann)] [yES::_ˉ [( nobody knows then)] [ ] 7 M:ˉ [wenn du sowiesO ARbeitslos bi-]=hhh he he he [if you anywAY JObless ar-]=hhh he he he [ifˉyouˉareˉUNemployed Anywa-]=hhh he he he



8 X: nee=ich hab auch schon dran gedacht [ un]d irgnwie ... no=I have also already of+it thought [ an]d somehow ... no=Iˉalsoˉthoughtˉofˉthatˉalready [ an]d somehow ... [ ] 9 M: ˉ [khh] [khh]ˉ((laughter))

((omitted: Xaver provides an account for why they can’t stop over in  the US: The flights were booked using air miles. His itinerary choices are therefore limited.))



17

(0.8)

18 X: und da: konnten wer uns dann: (.) nich aus:suchen wo wer and then: could we refl then: (.) not choose:where we andˉthen:ˉweˉcouldˉthen:ˉ(.)ˉnotˉchoose:ˉwhereˉwe 19



hinwollten, da musst en wer dann halt104 die verbindung to+wanted, then had to we then prt that connection wantedˉtoˉgo,ˉ(so)ˉweˉhadˉtoˉthenˉtakeˉtheˉoneˉconnection

.  A note on the use of the particle do-/doch (lines 1 and 2) in interaction: Möllering (2001) and Weydt and Hentschel (1983: 9) classify both ja and doch as particles that refer to shared knowledge. More so than ja, the meaning of which may be approximated with “as you know,” doch “appeals for agreement” (Durrell 2003: 156), thus showing an orientation to a presumed consensus on the matter (Helbig 1988: 110). Möllering (2001: 132) translates doch as “but you will agree that”. The approximate translation used here (“why don’t you”) was suggested by Andrea Golato (personal communication, May 2007). .  The particle halt “expresses the irreversible nature of the issue stated [drückt die Unabänderlichkeit des geäußerten Sachverhaltes aus]” (Weydt & Hentschel 1983: 9, my translation of



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 



20

nehmen die se uns vorgaben.=>weißte< ham als take that they us gave.=>know+you< have as thatˉtheyˉgaveˉus.=>youˉknow<ˉ(we)ˉchoseˉas



ziel genommen: san jose in costa rica, .hh destination taken: san jose in costa rica, .hh (our)ˉdestination:ˉsanˉjoseˉinˉcostaˉrica,ˉ.hh

21

22 M: mhm= mhm=

23 X: =und dann: konnten wir nich übe:r seattle oder so fliegen. =and then: could we not vi:a seattle or so fly. =andˉthen:ˉweˉcouldn’tˉflyˉvi:aˉseattleˉorˉsuch. 24 M: mhm. mhm. 25 X: weil des halt alles von:: (0.1) ähm ai:r (0.1) canada und because that prt all by:: (0.1) uhm ai:r (0.1) canada and becauseˉ(it’s)ˉthatˉ(0.1)ˉuhmˉai:rˉ(0.1)ˉcanadaˉand

26



partnern: (.) äh bewerkstelligt werden mussten. partners: (.) uh operated be mustpl. partners:ˉ(.)ˉuhˉhadˉtoˉoperateˉeverything.

27 M: mhm. mhm. → 28 M: t.hh was=du konntest du dir das ↑NIch aussuchen. t.hh what=you could you refl that ↑NOt choose. t.hhˉwhat=youˉcouldn’tˉyouˉchooseˉthatˉyourself. 29 M: t.hh[hh t.hh[hh [ 30 X:ˉ [ºnee:.º ((meekˉsounding)) [ºno:.º

31

(.)

32 X:ˉ ºdesº also, (.) des problem is halt auch dass ichˉ... ºtheº prt, (.) the problem is prt also that Iˉ... ºtheºˉ(so/well),ˉ(.)ˉtheˉproblemˉisˉalsoˉthatˉIˉ...ˉ

((talk continues with Xaver addressing another reason for not being flexible in his traveling; this time he details time issues))

the German original). Moreover, halt signals that the speaker “wants to transfer his stance on the issue onto the hearer, that is, that he is not able to change anything and not able to intervene, [möchte seine Enstellung, nichts ändern und nicht eingreifen zu können, auf den Hörer übertragen]” (Helbig 1988: 158). Hence, the repeated use of halt (lines 19, 25, 32) by Xaver is in the service of strengthening his account for refusing Manuel’s offer.

 Pivots in German Conversation

Xaver produces his rejection of Manuel’s invitation, a dispreferred action, in increments. Lines 18–23 contain an account of how his rejection of Manuel’s invitation and their use of air miles to pay for the flight are related. Line 25–26 then constitute an expansion of the prior turn (which was marked as prosodically complete) after a minimal response by Manuel (line 24). Manuel produces another continuer in line 27 and, with no further talk from Xaver forthcoming, the question word was (line 28). The token was is commonly used as a repair initiator indicating trouble in hearing or understanding (Egbert 2002a: 152–153), but may also be employed to point to expectational trouble in the previous talk (Egbert 2002a: 153; Selting 1996b; T. Weber 1998). In the latter use, was is commonly stressed (i.e., uttered with higher pitch or volume) and exhibits rising final intonation. Weber (1998) further observes that was is commonly used to indicate surprise or doubt about previous information, i.e., to locate a mismatch between previous assumptions or knowledge and new information. Because was can be used to express epistemic stance, it can also point to another kind of trouble: a possible disagreement. In the present example, was (line 28) precedes and is prosodically integrated into a second TCU. This TCU constitutes a partial repeat of prior talk (line 18): (6.10)

C13ˉaussuchen,ˉpartialˉrepeatˉofˉaˉco-participant’sˉpriorˉturn



18 X: und da: konnten wer uns dann: (.) nich aus:suchen wo wer and then: could we refl then: (.) not choose:where we andˉthen: we couldˉthen:ˉ(.) not choose:ˉwhereˉwe

19



hinwollten, to+wanted, wantedˉtoˉgo,

...

28 M: t.hh was=du konntest du dir das ↑NIch aussuchen. t.hh what=you could you refl that ↑NOt choose. t.hhˉwhat=you couldn’tˉyouˉchooseˉthatˉyourself.

A partial repeat of a prior utterance, especially when uttered with upward intonation, can be used to issue candidate hearings of prior talk (H. Kim 2002; Schegloff et al. 1977; Selting 1996b; Sorjonen 1996) or pre-disagreements (Schegloff 1987a, 2007; Schegloff et al. 1977). I argue that the beginning of Manuel’s turn accomplishes the latter. The first part of the turn, structurally a “declarative question” (Quirk & Greenbaum 1985; E. Weber 1993) seems designed to express the speaker’s stance toward the information that is reissued in line 28. That is, rather than requesting information, Manuel’s (projected) TCU constitutes an assertion of an opinion towards the information conveyed earlier (lines 18–19) by Xaver. In fact, several features of the preceding interaction suggest that this may be the main purpose of the projected declarative question: Manuel’s turn follows a dispreferred



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

response by his co-participant Xaver, who, as already noted, declined the extended invitation by providing accounts. Xaver’s first account, once it is possibly complete (line 23), is registered merely as an informing by his co-participant (line 24); Manuel does not produce a receipt for and acceptance of Xaver’s action of declining the invitation, which could close the sequence. This, in turn, prompts Xaver to extend his account, and again, he receives only a minimal, non-committal information receipt (line 27). Hence, we can see that there is a problem on Markus’s part with Xaver’s account. In this interactional environment, the placement of Manuel’s turn in line 28 allows it to be heard as announcing a dispreferred action, possibly a challenge to the validity of Xaver’s account. The closeness of this turn to the trouble source (line 18) – Manuel has access to the answer to his question – also makes his inquiry hearable as an assertion rather than a “real,” information-seeking question. What is more, the assertion Manuel conveys in this turn is of the opposite polarity to what the question formally conveys. That is, enhanced by was as a marker of disbelief, the pre-pivot+pivot structure (rather, the TCU projected by it, see segment (6.11)) seems to positively assert that Xaver indeed had had a say in determining his flight itinerary, even though it is couched in a negative syntactic format. Hence, the TCU projected by the pre-pivot+pivot structure is similar in form and function to a yes/ no-reverse polarity question in English as described by Koshik (2002, 2005). (6.11)

C13ˉaussuchenˉ[126_Oregon1A_405],ˉpivotˉstructure

t.hh was du konntest ((incomplete, objˉ&ˉinfˉprojected)) konntest du dir das ↑NIchˉaussuchen. t.hh was= du konntest du dir das ↑NIch aussuchen. |pre-| pivot | post-pivot | t.hhˉwhat=youˉcouldn’tˉyouˉchoose/determineˉthatˉyourself.

Reverse polarity questions both in everyday conversations and in institutional settings (notably interviews) are, as Koshik (2002) shows, commonly used in a variety of disaffiliative contexts to implement adversative actions (challenges, accusations, etc).105 In the present example, a challenge is initiated with was=du konntest ((dir das nicht aussuchen))/“what you could((n’t choose/determine that yourself)).” The second part of the construction, the pivot+post-pivot structure, is formally a yes/ no-question. Thus, within this pivot construction, a shift in sentence modality – from a declarative to a question – takes place. The shift is a formal one, and how this mode is actually put to use and heard in interaction has to be determined

.  Compare also Monzoni (2008), who describes the use of wh- and yes/no-questions to introduce disaffiliative moves, notably complaints, in Italian.

 Pivots in German Conversation

locally (Schegloff 1984, 1987a). Formally, the pre-pivot+pivot declarative may either be as a confirmation-seeking question (a repair initiation) or as a stanceexpressing assertion. Within its local interactional context, it serves as the latter. For the pivot+post-pivot structure, similar observations can be made. It was noted earlier that a partial repeat of a prior utterance can be used to issue a candidate hearing of prior talk or to do a pre-disagreement, and I argued that the first part of Manuel’s pivot turn accomplishes the latter. I argue that the second part does the former. That is, the main purpose of the pivot+post-pivot structure is not to express his epistemic stance and thus challenge the validity of Xaver’s account. While it is of course still hearable as such, the syntactic shift from a declarative question to an interrogative question as well as the dropping of the was-preface in the transition to a new construction makes the pivot+post-pivot also hearable as a repair initiation. More specifically, it constitutes an understanding check. In this hearing, the preferred answer to the pivot+post-pivot structure is of the same polarity as the question, that is, a confirmation with “no” (due to the negative frame of the question) is preferred. Xaver’s response suggests that he actually hears this turn as an understanding check: He responds with nee:. (line 30). However, the delay of his response and its notably more quiet and somewhat hesitant delivery suggests that there is an orientation on Xaver’s part to a challenge having been “in the making,” albeit not completed as an action. The shift in Manuel’s pivot turn from a challenge to a candidate understanding, which effectively implements a back down by weakening the epistemic stance of the assertion, thus gives both participants “a way out” of a disaffiliative or even adversary action: Manuel abandons the action by transforming it into something else and Xaver has no obligation to respond to an abandoned line of action. Instead, Xaver continues his activity of providing justifications for rejecting the invitation that was extended to him. Note, however, that he moves on to another type of account, this time focusing on time issues and competing commitments. This shift may well be the result of Manuel’s having questioned the validity of Xaver’s first account. Segment (6.9) aussuchen exemplifies a change in syntactic format within the periphery of the pivot construction and its impact on the progress of the interaction. As observed for all of the examples in this section, this pivot occurs at a crucial point in the development of the larger sequence, and it implements describable interactional goals. In all of the examples discussed in this section, the actions carried out during the pivot turn orients to problems in alignment, recipiency, or affiliation. In the present example, the speaker uses a pivot construction to perform a shift in the epistemic stance conveyed and thereby back down from a challenge. In terms of affiliation, the following example exemplifies a shift in the opposite direction. In instance (6.12) below, a speaker uses a syntactic pivot construction to transform an inquiry (no epistemic stance conveyed) into an accusation (strong



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

epistemic stance conveyed). This shift in action is reflected in a syntactic shift from an information-seeking question to a declarative. 6.2.2.2  Shifts initiated by co-participant conduct The following data excerpt concludes the analysis section of this chapter. Segment (6.12) will showcase that, while overwhelmingly self-initiated, syntactic shifts that implement an embedded correction in epistemic stance and action can also be initiated and shaped by concurrent co-participant conduct. Hence, this segment is particularly well suited to highlight a main property of all pivot constructions: They emerge in discourse and respond in real time to changes in the unfolding interaction (including the dimensions of knowledge, participation structure, alignment, intersubjectivity). Biggi and his sister Erna have just discussed a family member’s illness. This sequence and topic is closed in lines 1–2, and after a pause, both Biggi (lines 4, 6) and Erna (line 5) self-select to initiate a new sequence. Erna drops out of the resulting overlap, while Biggi continues his turn with an announcement: He recently phoned Erna and her roommate. He expands this turn by adding the reason for this call: It was on the occasion of Barbara’s birthday. (6.12)

C11ˉanrufbeantworterˉ[E_01_B_279]

1 BI: okay. okay.



2 E: okay. okay.

3

(0.8)

4 BI: .hh .hh 5 E: du [musst mich- ] you [must me- ] ˉ [ ] 6 BI: [>(übrigens hab euch)<] fai106 angeru:fen:. [>(by theˉway have youpl)<] prt ca:lled. [>(by theˉway (I) called)<] youˉ(justˉsoˉyouˉknow).

.  Schlieben-Lange (1979: 312–313) describes the Bavarian fai/fe˜i as typically occurring at the beginning of new sequences/topics and in sequence-initiating turns. The particle is used to mark a piece of information as new (or as assumed to be new for the recipient) or it marks an argument as a new one. According to Schlieben-Lange, fai/fe˜i may additionally indicate a speaker’s specific stance: The information or argument presented is not only new but potentially conflicts with the recipient’s prior assumptions or expectations. This seems to apply here: Biggi’s fai is responsive to an expectation by Erna that he did not call (it will become clear later in the

 Pivots in German Conversation 7

wo die barbara geburtstag hatte. when the ((name)) birthday had. whenˉitˉwasˉbarbara’sˉbirthday.



(0.4)

8

9 E: und, and,

10

(0.4)

11 BI: ich hab euch nich erreicht. p(h)uha I have you not reached. p(h)uha Iˉdidn’tˉreachˉyou.ˉp(h)uha

12

(.)

→ 13 E: o:a [haste was au]fn ↑ANrufbeantworter= o:a [have+you something o]n+the ↑ANsweringˉmachine= o:ˉ(that’sˉtooˉbad) [didˉyou107 somethingˉo]nˉtheˉ↑ANsweringˉmachine= [ ] 14 BI: [tä↑hä↑↑hä ] [tuh↑huh↑↑huh ] → 15 E: =hast aber ↑au↑ nich↑ gesprochen. .h .hh =have though ↑also↑ not↑ talked. .h .hh =youˉdidn’tˉtalkˉ↑either.ˉ.hˉ.hh 16 BI: ä:h stimmt. ich habe euch im büro ve u:h that’sˉright. I have youpl in+the office tr u:hˉthat’sˉright.ˉIˉtriedˉinˉtheˉofficeˉto-

17

äh versucht zu erreichen. uh tried to reach. uhˉtoˉreachˉyou.



(0.2)

18

19 E: pt(h)=o::[: pt(h)=o::[:ˉ [ 20 BI:ˉ [aber ich KAnn WEnigstens sagen ich habs [but I CAn ATˉleast say I have+it [butˉIˉCAnˉATˉleastˉsayˉI

transcript that he did not actually talk to Erna or her roommate) and thus preempts a criticism that could be launched by Erna on the basis of this assumption. The function of German fai seems similar to English actually used in TCU-internal position. .  The verb “leave” is projected here.



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 



21

versu:cht=und [ich]- ich bl=also(i)ch b- will nicht sagen= trie:d=and [ I]- I bl=so+I b- want not say= trie:d=and [ I]- I bl=soˉIˉb-ˉdon’tˉmeanˉtoˉsay= [ ] 22 E: [.h ] [.h ]

23 BI: =dass ichs- (.) euch erreiche[n wollt_ un]bedingt.= =that I+it- (.) you-pl rea[ch wanted_ ne]cessarily.= =that Iˉit- (.) wantedˉto rea[chˉyou_ ne]cessarily= [ ] 24 E: [pt(h) .hh] [pt(h) .hh] 25 BI: =.hhh =.hhh 26 BI: aber ich habs versucht. but I have+it tried. butˉIˉtried.ˉ

Biggi’s announcement in lines 6–7 – the very mentioning of an attempt to call and the use of the particle fai (Schlieben-Lange 1979) – displays an orientation to the expectation that he should have called Barbara for her birthday. Erna initiates repair in line 9: That Biggi announces the past call as news for Erna implies that he did not get to talk to her; if he claims to have called, but she did not receive a call, an explanation (of the circumstances of the call or alternatively of the relevance of the announcement) is in order. This explanation is requested and initiated by und.108 Biggi provides an explanation in line 11 and concludes it with a non-lexical token that provides an assessment or upshot (i.e., it reports his reaction to not having reached the sought party). After a brief gap, Erna receives the new information with a marker of affective stance (line 13), thereby also claiming that the previous knowledge asymmetry has been resolved, and follows up with a question. In overlap with the beginning of this TCU, Biggi produces three short laugh tokens. Erna emerges out of the overlap and continues her turn in progress. However, after the pp aufn ANrufbeantworter, she does not produce the syntactically projected ppt gesprochen but continues her turn with the finite verb hast. Despite the fact that this element cannot constitute a syntactic continuation of the constructionin-progress, it is uttered without a prosodic break. Within the temporal emergence of the construction, this renders the pp as the beginning of a new syntactic unit,

.  The format through which Erna encourages Biggi to provide more information is similar to a grammatical practice available to speakers of English and deployed to prompt a co-participant to elaborate (Lerner 2004a).

 Pivots in German Conversation

although it is prosodically and syntactically also a continuation of the previous structure. The structure unfolds as follows: (6.13)

anrufbeantworterˉ[E_01_B_279]

[haste was au]fn ↑ANrufbeantworter ((incomplete,ˉpptˉprojected)) au]fnˉ↑ANrufbeantworterˉhastˉaberˉ↑au↑ˉnich↑



gesprochen.

[haste was au]fn ↑Anrufbeantworter hast aber ↑au↑ nich↑  gesprochen. | pre-pivot | pivot | post-pivot | [didˉyouˉ(leave) s  omethingˉo]nˉtheˉ↑ANsweringˉmachineˉyouˉdidn’tˉtalk/  leave aˉmessageˉ↑either.

In this turn, Erna not only performs a shift from one syntactic construction to the next but also transforms a yes/no-question into a declarative. Within the larger sequence of actions, this corresponds to a shift in action from asking a follow-up question that accepts the previous information/explanation at face value and thus exhibits no epistemic or affective polarity to assertively stating facts and thereby doing an accusation. With the latter, Erna challenges Biggi’s claim to have called but not reached anybody, possibly suggesting that he did not call at all and is in fact fabricating an excuse. That issues of (social) face are clearly in play here–despite the jocular nature of the exchange between the siblings (see lines 14, 22–23)–is evident in the fact that Biggi continues to defend his position. In line 16, he accepts the factual part of Erna’s accusation with stimmt, but provides an explanation for his behavior (he called Barbara’s office, where the option of leaving a message was not available to him), thereby maintaining that he did call. The pivot turn in this interaction thus again occurs at an interactional place where participants negotiate the interpretation and interactional impact of an utterance, issues of alignment, and matters of social face. In order to uncover a possible motivation for Erna’s shift from an aligning to a non-aligning action, I will return to line 14. Here, Biggi produces short laugh tokens in overlap with the beginning of Erna’s pivot TCU. In order to analyze the interactional import of these tokens, I will sketch a few important points about the organization of (1) simultaneous talk and (2) laughter in interaction. 1.  Simultaneous talk: Research on spoken interaction has shown that speakers not only register talk that overlaps with their own, but are able to and do pay close attention to content, structural details, and interactional placement of overlapping talk (Schegloff 2000); that is, interactants try to make meaning of how it connects to prior talk and orient to the kinds of actions it makes relevant. In segment (6.12), Biggi laughs in overlap with Erna’s talk. We can assume that Erna not only hears



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

Biggi’s laughter, but also hears it in light of (and connected to) the talk that preceded it, that is, as providing information for interpreting or reinterpreting Biggi’s just prior announcement. 2.  Laughter: Biggi’s laughter in line 14 gives, in a purely intuitional hearing, the impression of slight “nervousness” or “embarrassment.” Glenn (2003: 103) notes that “brief, equivocal, laugh particles” can “modify [a previous] utterance as joke, not to be taken at face value.” Such a modification in retrospect provides the coparticipant(s) with information on how to make sense of a prior utterance by the laughing party. Thus, unlike in instances where laughter follows a joke or teasing, the laughter in the present example seems to point to a problematic (and in this regard potentially “laughable”) aspect of the prior turn or action; a problem that was not immediately obvious. These laugh tokens serve as a commentary on the action carried out by the prior turn rather than on its semantic content, i.e., they unmask Biggi’s previous action as not being what it initially seemed to be. Recall that Biggi’s assertion in line 11 is part of a larger sequence initiated in line 6. In this sequence, Biggi brings to Erna’s attention a past action that would otherwise go unrecognized and may serve as the basis for a future complaint or criticism by Erna. In line 9, Erna displays that Biggi’s announcement alone is insufficient, and she elicits an account. Biggi’s slight delay in providing the requested account could already point to trouble but is accepted by Erna at face value (line 13). In this interactional context and considering that Erna produces an accusation immediately after Biggi’s laughter, we can suppose that Biggi’s laugh tokens expose some aspect of his account in line 11 (and by implication his claim in lines 6–7) as not truthful. Lines 20–26, in which Biggi verbalizes his motivation for the call in question, support this: He did call but did not actually want to speak to Erna or her roommate; instead, by his own account, he called to fulfill a perceived duty (calling someone he knows for her birthday) in order to then be able to report its fulfillment. For the analysis of the pivot construction Erna produces in lines 13–15 the above two points are crucial. Biggi’s laughter in line 14 and Erna’s question in line 13 are uttered in overlap. Erna’s question follows, and is based on, a claim and account that she accepted at face value. While she utters her question, however, Biggi provides a commentary on his prior action and thereby provides new clues for its interpretation. Based on his laughter, Erna changes her interpretation of his prior turn: She now has a reason and basis for challenging his account. This change in her interpretation of her co-participant’s turn in line 11 renders the action Erna had projected with haste was obsolete, or at least secondary. However, she does not abandon the talk-in-progress to start a new TCU; she transforms the construction-inprogress by using a syntactic “pivot maneuver” (Lerner 2004a: 176). This syntactic shift is minutely coordinated with the end of her co-participant’s contribution. Thus, within one TCU, Erna initiates a sequence and restructures her talk in

 Pivots in German Conversation

response to her Biggi’s talk, which recasts the action to which her turn is responsive. Erna’s use of a pivot construction at this specific moment displays attention to the minute details of her co-participant’s conduct and exemplifies how speakers put the structural resources of a given language to use in real-time interaction.

6.3  Discussion The pivot constructions presented in this chapter display notable differences in the structural periphery. These were of broadly two kinds: modifications of the modality, mood, or tense of the verb phrase and modifications of the sentence frame. In addition to providing a functional account for these types of pivot constructions, I set out to present detailed descriptions of some complex examples of syntactic shift and thereby illustrate the gain of studying these constructions for an account of the spoken syntax of German. In the remainder of this chapter, I will summarize my findings and then outline why pivot constructions provide a particularly good object for studying the relationship between syntactic structure and conversational practice. This area will be given further consideration in Chapter 7. In Chapter 5 and the present chapter, I discussed pivot constructions used to negotiate conversational trouble. While the previous chapter discussed the systematic use of such construction in overt repair practices that address word-finding problems, the present chapter focused on their use for embedded corrections; that is, for modifications that are not made the business of interaction and in which the trouble source is not as clear-cut. These operations target problems in recipiency (see (6.7) gorte), alignment (for example a mismatch in what interactants consider relevant information to a telling-in-progress or what they identify as the next relevant interactional move), and affiliation (see (6.1) garten, (6.9) aussuchen). They do so through modifying or correcting the epistemic stance conveyed and/or the action carried out in the pivot turn. By using a pivot construction rather than an overt and syntactically marked repair operation (cut-off and restart) or a parenthetical, speakers are able to address problems “as unobtrusively as possible” (Scheutz 2005:  126) within the same turn and TCU. Hence, it seems that pivot constructions present a strategy that enables speakers to accomplish one activity while the primary business of the turn is another task, e.g., modifying the stance expressed while primarily providing an account (see (6.1) garten). The pivot turn is not occupied with doing a correction or modification, but with doing another activity that forwards the larger sequence and action in progress. Based on this property, pivots can be said to constitute a resource for carrying out “embedded corrections,” as described by Jefferson (1987) and set apart from “exposed corrections.” Both embedded and exposed corrections are devices for dealing with



Chapter 6.  Correcting an action or epistemic stance 

a problematic item in the ongoing talk (one’s own or another’s), but in embedded operations, speakers do correcting “without [it] emerging to the conversational surface” (Jefferson 1987:  86) at all.109 Syntactic pivot constructions of the modified construction type thus present a syntactic strategy for carrying out embedded corrections or modifications of one’s own talk. It should be pointed out that embedding a correction or modification does not result in complete interactional “invisibility.” Changes carried out in pivot turns are noticeable for co-participants and may be orientated to. Note, for example that in segment (6.9) aussuchen, a next speaker responds to the pivot+post-pivot structure (an understanding check), but displays an orientation to the pre-pivot+pivot (a challenge) having been uttered, while in (3.5)/(4.1) bessa, the co-participant’s open-ended response to the pivot+post-pivot turn (a yes/no-question) is type-fitted to the pre-pivot+pivot structure (a wh-question). This illustrates that, as is also the case in repairs, recipients do process an abandoned structure and the course of action it sets out to implement, and this may inform their response. In contrast to typical self-repairs (both intra-TCU and TCU-expanding repairs) and parentheticals, speakers bring off the production of two possibly independent structures as one through-produced unit when they use a pivot construction. This allows them to “transform” one construction into another in a prosodically seamless and syntactically progressive way (i.e., without syntactic “backtracking”). By performing such a shift, speakers can strengthen or weaken their stance toward an action or toward information conveyed, or they may implement two different actions in one TCU. They may, in one interactional unit and without indicating trouble by lexical or non-lexical means (repeats, cut-offs, hesitation markers): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

make a claim and support it assert a position or epistemic stance and strengthen it provide an account and strengthen its credibility display a problem in recipiency or alignment and attempt to address it implement a disaffiliative move (e.g., a challenge) and a back down from it

Such shifts can be self-initiated or other-initiated; they can bring problems or disaffiliating actions to the interactional surface, sustain them, or mitigate such dispreferred moves. Therefore, syntactic pivot constructions seem to be particularly well suited for actions in which speakers address potential or actual problems in alignment, recipiency, or affiliation.

.  Jefferson (1987) focuses on corrections of other participants” talk. See Mandelbaum (2005) for an account of how embedded self-corrections may be accomplished and for a description of one specific interactional function.

 Pivots in German Conversation

The data discussed in this chapter also underscores the correlation between form and function in the use of pivot constructions. All constructions analyzed were all of the “modified” type (see Chapter 2, Section 2.4.2), and they displayed great structural variance, not only in the periphery, but also with regard to the central pivot element. In pivots constructions that instantiate an epistemic or action shift, the central pivot position may be, in order of frequency, a PP (as in (6.12) anrufbeantworter), a clause (as in (6.5) helga in ungarn 2 or (6.7) gorte), a finite verb (as in (6.9) aussuchen), an adverb, or a dative object (both not discussed). The occurrence of pivot constructions with finite verbs in central position in my data – across varieties of German – contrasts with Scheutz (2005: 116), who finds no occurrences of such constructions in his collection of pivots in German every-day interactions. Based on his finding and on intuitions about constructed examples, Scheutz concludes that a transformation of “the sentence mode from a declarative to an interrogative … is obviously impossible in a pivot structure as analyzed” in his study. My data show that these types of transformations via pivot constructions do in fact occur in every-day interactions. They are by no means common, but they do not constitute incidental or erroneous constructions. As they do not pose production or processing problems for interactants, their rarity seems attributable to the fact that these types of pivot constructions facilitate a very specialized kind of shift in syntactic format or “sentence mode” and, consequently, in interactional function. While I have made a structural distinction between “self-initiated” and “initiated by co-participant conduct” in the discussion of the data in this chapter, I do not intend to convey that the pivot constructions categorized as belonging to the former can be analyzed as isolated utterances or actions in terms of a single speaker’s intentions and plans, and only the latter require consideration of context. In terms of interactional motivation, both types of pivots have to be discussed within the larger context, with consideration given to the discourse preceding the pivot turn as well as the interaction following it. I singled out segment (6.12) anrufbeantworter, because I believe it shows very clearly how pivot constructions may be used by speakers to adapt to changing interactional constellations (disclosure of new information, reshaping of actions, and changes in participation structure) and thereby reflect a speaker’s “re-evaluation of the conversational context” (Scheutz 2005: 126). Such types of pivots in particular highlight the main characteristic of all pivot constructions – their emergence in real time and in response to local needs – and thus present intriguing examples for the working of syntax in interaction. They illustrate that, on the one hand, syntax provides languagespecific resources for and thereby shapes discourse structures; on the other hand, discourse-level demands determine the use of linguistic resources and thereby shape the ways syntax is “deployed and exploited for the organization of turns and sequences in conversation” (Hakulinen & Selting 2005a: 4).

chapter 7

Concluding discussion The present study has analyzed the shape and interactional function of syntactic pivot constructions in different varieties of everyday spoken German. In this chapter, I summarize the findings presented in the previous chapters and discuss the broader implications of my findings for the study of spoken and written language in general, the study of spoken syntax in specific, and the definition of linguistic units in spoken language. Finally, I outline some possible directions for future research that emerged from my work.

7.1  Summary of findings This study investigated a recurrent syntactic structure in German that is limited to spoken interaction: a syntactic pivot construction. In this construction, two separate and potentially independent syntactic structures are connected by a shared element in such a way that the discrete point at which the first structure ends and a second one begins is indeterminable. Hence, the structures in segments (7.1) and (7.2) can be said to constitute single, coherent units. (7.1) theˉboneˉ[NB.IV.3–185s;ˉPIV005]ˉ(takenˉfromˉWalkerˉ2007: 2219) Emm:ˉ butˉI(’d)ˉl:oveˉtheˉboneˉwasˉso::ˉbeautifˉeh (7.2)

germanistikˉ[Oˉ05-B_496]

M: ich gänau ban ↓dokter mies ich nau gä I go+now to+the ↓doctor must I now go I’mˉgoingˉtoˉtheˉ↓doctorˉisˉwhereˉIˉhaveˉtoˉgo now

In previous work on different languages, this type of construction has been variously termed a syntactic “pivot construction” (Schegloff 1979; Scheutz 2005; Walker 2007), “syntactic blending” (Fox 1993), “syntactic double bind” (Franck 1985) or, based on a special syntactic pattern in medieval German poetry, “apokoinu” (Norén 2003b, 2007; Poncin 2003; Scheutz 1992) – implicating different traditions of language study and grammatical classifications. With few exceptions, previous work concerned with this structure in German has focused on its syntactic properties with little attention given to its context of occurrence and

 Pivots in German Conversation

communicative functions (see Chapter 1). This study attempted to fill this gap and expand the findings by Scheutz (2005) by adopting a sequential approach to the study of pivot construction, i.e., a focus on the actions accomplished and oriented to through talk, and thus demonstrate through fine-grained analysis that pivots are interactional phenomena. This approach allowed for a principled account of a range of interactional contexts in which pivot constructions occur and descriptions of the specific communicative functions pivots serve. This includes functions related to repair procedures (Chapter 5, cf. Schegloff et al. 1977; Scheutz 2005) and other operations that anticipate and solve interactional trouble (Chapter 6), but also those that address “organizational problems” (Schegloff 2006: 71) of talk in interaction (turn-taking, Chapter 3; sequence organization, Chapter 4; word selection problems, Chapter 5). Moreover, this study sketched out the correlation between form and communicative function of various pivot types, thus not only confirming Scheutz’s (2005) findings that different kinds of pivot types cluster in different functional environments, but also uncovering that different kinds of constructions may have distinct functions in the same environment. Lastly, this study showed that the uses identified are systematic across different spoken varieties of German. Overall, the approach taken in this study enabled finer distinctions to be made in the use of pivots in talk in interaction (viz. the distinction between its use in repair vs. corrections, the connection between form and function) and provided a more comprehensive account of pivots in interaction than previous studies have afforded. This study found that syntactic pivot constructions are, most generally, a practice for extending a turn in progress. Speakers use this basic function in various situations to achieve local communicative goals, mainly related to problems in recipiency, alignment, and affiliation. The methodology chosen for this study is conversation analysis (CA) in the tradition of Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (Atkinson & Heritage 1984; Lerner 2004b; Prevignano & Thibault 2003; Sacks 1992; Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1979, 2007; Schegloff et al. 1977; Schegloff & Sacks 1973; see Chapter 1, this volume). Following the basic tenets of CA, the moment-by moment development of the talk was traced on different levels in the examination of the vocal and non-vocal conduct of participants to interaction: the organization of turns and of speaker change, sequence organization, the organization of larger topical units, and the organization of resources designed to deal with various kinds of trouble in the interaction. Syntactic pivot constructions draw on grammatical properties of a given language, particularly word order rules. Therefore, Chapter 2 provided a review of relevant aspects of spoken German grammar. This chapter also provided a definition of syntactic pivot constructions and an overview of different types of pivots with regard to their structural design. I outlined how pivot constructions are distinguishable from other syntactic structures such as verb-first sentences in German, and from



Chapter 7.  Conclusion 

other practices for extending an utterance in progress. Here, it becomes apparent that pivot constructions cannot be defined on the basis of syntax alone. Features of prosody and intonation play a crucial role in distinguishing them from other spoken phenomena, and semantics are essential in allowing (syntactically and prosodically) possible pivot constructions to be identified as actual pivot constructions. In Chapters 3–6, I showed that pivot constructions are used systematically in spoken German and, therefore, they need to be viewed as emergent in interaction. I located the functions of syntactic pivot constructions as a resource within fundamental principles in the organization of social interaction through talk: turntaking organization (Chapter 3), sequence and topic organization (Chapter 4), the organization of repair (Chapters 5) and of other resources to address trouble in interaction (Chapter 6). The basic property of pivot construction is that they allow a speaker to extend an utterance beyond a point of possible completion in a most unmarked (or “unobtrusive”) way. In each of the analysis chapters, I explored how speakers exploit this basic property to meet current communicative needs. Chapter 3 first provided an overview of various systematic strategies speakers have at their disposal to extend a turn in progress beyond a point of possible completion. This section continued and expanded the discussion of pivots within the context of other turn continuation practices (begun in Chapter 2). While this chapter foregrounded syntax and phonetics, it also showed the importance of semantics for identifying pivot constructions: It offered an example in which the analysis of structure as a pivot is blocked by semantics, although such a hearing would be syntactically and prosodically possible. Chapter 3 focused on one specific interactional environment: overlap. Specifically, it discussed syntactic pivot constructions as a device to manage the demands put on the stretch of interaction following overlap. In these environments, pivots serve to recover potentially impaired talk, and thus seem to constitute an alternative to recycled turn beginnings (Schegloff 1987c, 1998, 2000). Hence, syntactic pivot constructions could be shown to present a systematic resource for turn-taking, that is, for managing the distribution of speakership and recipiency in interaction. In addition to being used to negotiate boundaries of speakership, pivot constructions can also be a resource at sequential and topical boundaries. In Chapter 4, I showed that at such junctures, speakers use pivot constructions to perform sequential shifts, for example from a responsive to a sequence initiating move or from a (competing) parenthetical sequence back to the main sequence. Interactants can thereby effectively steer the direction of the current topic at points where sequential and topical transitions need to be negotiated. The function of pivot constructions as a turn-keeping device and safeguard against speaker change holds particular relevance to the study of topic development in interaction (see, e.g., Button & Casey 1985, 1989; Golato 2006; Holt & Drew 2005; Jefferson 1984;

 Pivots in German Conversation

Maynard 1980) and the organization of larger structural units in conversation, e.g., story-telling sequences (see, e.g., C. Goodwin 1984; Jefferson 1978; Sacks 1986). In Chapter 5, I shifted my focus of analysis to the organization of a set of conversational practices designed to deal with problems in speaking, hearing, and understanding: repair (Egbert 2002a; Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1979; Schegloff et al. 1977). Specifically, I focused on self-repair based on trouble in finding a word. My findings indicate that pivot constructions are used at different points in the organization of a word search, and their shape and interactional functions differ with their placement. For example, if used during a search, pivot constructions serve to gain additional processing time. Used at the end of or after a search, they mark the search as complete and resume the main line of action. Pivots used after a search, in particular those that take a specific shape (“heißt das”/“(is what) it’s called”-constructions) may additionally serve to retroactively characterize the previous action as a search, or they may orient to the inadequacy of a reference formulation. This chapter is relevant to the study of word searches in general. My findings confirm existing descriptions of the organization of word searches in German (see, e.g., Egbert 2002a; Fox et al. 2006; Golato 2000b; Iványi 2002; ­Rönfeld & Auer 2002; Uhmann 1997a, 1997b, 2001) and show that these basic organizational features also apply to yet undocumented varieties of German (notably Siebenbürger Sächsisch). They also expand existing research by highlighting aspects that have as of yet received little attention, such as the role of sentence-level resources in the organization of repair, and the use of resources such as metacomments, turn-final acknowledgment tokens, and place holders. Moreover, this chapter (notably Section 5.2.5) provides insights relevant to the study of reference formulation in German (Auer 1979, 1981, 1984).110 In addition to pivot constructions in which the left and right periphery are similar in semantics and with respect to the syntactic frame, my data also yielded examples of pivot constructions that are structurally more complex. In these pivots constructions, speakers carry out corrections or other modifications in the shift from one syntactic structure to the next. I showed in Chapter 6 that turns in which these pivot constructions occur are not occupied with doing repair in the traditional sense, but constitute examples of embedded self-corrections (Jefferson 1987; Mandelbaum 2005). That is, the speaker accomplishes a correction of the action format (e.g., changing an inquiry into a complaint) or a modification of the stance conveyed (e.g., a shift from a weaker stance to more epistemic security) in

.  For research on reference formulation in other languages, see Enfield (2007), Ford (1996), Sacks (1979), and Schegloff (1996a).



Chapter 7.  Conclusion 

a structurally unobtrusive fashion. These operations address or preempt problems in alignment, recipiency, and affiliation. Hence, this chapter highlights how the structural complexity of such pivot constructions reflects the complexity of the sequences in which they are embedded and the intricacy of the interactional problems they are designed to address.

7.2  Implications Following the tradition of ethnomethodological conversation analysis within the field of interactional linguistics (see Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2001; Hakulinen & Selting 2005a; Schegloff et al. 1996), this study approached grammar as a system that is “related to the management of turns in talking, which is further related to the emergence of complex organizations in groups of people” (Ford et al. 2003: 139). In other words, rather than viewing grammar as a self-enclosed system, it is seen as essentially interactional, as one set of resources interlocutors have available to deal with the demands of interaction and “resolve recurrent communicative problems” (Ford et al. 2003: 120; see also Hopper 1988, 1998). This study illustrates the profitability of such an approach for investigating how grammatical structures are put to use in their main habitat: every-day social interaction. By providing a detailed analysis of the complex syntactic shifts that occur in pivot constructions, this study shows how speakers use–rather, “exploit”–grammatical resources to restructure a turn and shape the development of the talk. Speakers employ these structures at topical boundaries (Chapter 4) and at boundaries of actions (Chapters 5, 6). However, this study also shows that pivot constructions are shaped by the conversational context and used in response to the co-participants” emerging conduct. They are used to manage the aftermath of simultaneous talk and other problems in recipiency (Chapter 3) and to resolve situations in which competing actions are pursued (Chapter 4). Moreover, they allow speakers to respond to changes in the information structure and to preempt or address troubles in intersubjectivity (Chapter 6). In all of these contexts, syntactic pivot constructions allow speakers to implement interactionally significant changes within one turn constructional unit in a structurally inconspicuous way. By illustrating how syntactic structures take shape in real time and in response to changing interactional constellations, this study shows that “grammar is not only a resource for interaction and not only an outcome of interaction, it is part of the essence of interaction itself ” (Ochs et al. 1996: 38). This study shows that taking an interactional approach to syntax enables us to uncover structural regularities where, at first pass, there seems to be talk governed by production errors and shortcomings in processing performance, or where

 Pivots in German Conversation

specific structures seem only to constitute linguistic idiosyncrasy. This observation has several implications for the study of language structures and specifically the study of spoken German. 7.2.1  Spoken and written language Traditionally, there has been a tendency in Linguistics to focus on standard, written forms of text (Linell 1982), thus equating language with “written language.” Only in the past three decades have approaches to spoken language emerged; that is, the study of spoken language as a system in its own right (e.g., Chafe & Danielewicz 1987; Chafe & Tannen 1987). The findings from this research suggest that there are essential differences between spoken and written language, notably with respect to features such as temporality and linearity, dialogic structure, and flexibility of syntactic structuring. These differences shape not only the production but also the processing of the different modes of language. Auer (2007a) points out that proficient speakers process written language fundamentally differently than spoken language; that is, spoken input emerges and is received in a linear fashion, while the processing of written texts can be described as two-dimensional. When reading, we capture several words or even lines of text at once and thus recognize and use relevant syntactic information that lies ahead of what we are currently focusing on. In spoken interaction, by contrast, processing is incremental and relies on the resources of syntactic, pragmatic, and prosodic projection. As a result, spoken and written modes differ in how linguistic resources are used and which kinds of structures emerge to meet interactional needs. Thus, Ford et al. (2003: 139) conclude that “grammar has to be flexible, probabilistic, and more loosely structured than has been assumed.” Pivot constructions exemplify a structure that is limited to spoken language and fitted to meet demands specific to the spoken mode of language, especially adaptability to changes in participation structures and relative knowledge status. Since interactional placement and aim are essential to understanding syntactic pivot constructions, a meaningful description needs to include the local context and communicative function. 7.2.2  Syntactic phenomena in spoken language In classical grammar, pivot constructions have been categorized as a type of syntactic “anacoluthon” (Schwitalla 2003), that is, a type of abrupt syntactic change within a sentence.111 This category subsumes other phenomena that are specific to

.  In many studies on older literary texts, the task of distinguishing pivot constructions from syntactic break-offs (anacoluthon) and coordination without conjunctions (asyndeton)



Chapter 7.  Conclusion 

spoken language but can be viewed as incomplete or idiosyncratic from a normative perspective, such as syntactic break-offs, cut-offs followed by restarts, hesitations, parentheses, and syntactic “contaminations,” in short, it is “a ‘catch-all category’ into which everything that doesn’t conform to the syntactical-grammatical norm of the written language is thrown without any serious attempt at an adequate description” (Scheutz 2005: 104). If we look at the use of these phenomena individually, it quickly becomes clear that they all serve different functions in interaction;112 the rationale for categorizing these highly diverse phenomena into one category of “anacolutha” is thus questionable. A comparison of pivot constructions and structures that might fall in the (somewhat unfortunately termed) group of “syntactic contaminations” (Rath 1976: 293; Schwitalla 2003: 130) will serve as an illustration. Syntactic structures such as the one exemplified in (7.3) are commonly found in the same broad category as pivots; as I will argue below and considering the findings in Chapter 3–6, this categorization cannot be upheld. (7.3) (takenˉfromˉSchwitallaˉ(2003: 130);ˉdataˉfromˉaˉpoliceˉinterrogation) weil

sie mich bedroht gefühlt haben because they me threatened felt have-pl

Structurally, “syntactic contaminations,” just like syntactic pivot constructions, can be said to constitute a merging of two different constructions (in the above example, these are identifiable as weil sie mich bedroht haben/“because they threatened me” and weil ich mich bedroht gefühlt habe/“because I felt threatened”). The merging, however, is somewhat more “messy” than what I have observed for pivot constructions. It seems that while pivot constructions represent a shift from one construction to the next over time, two sentences are produced effectively at the same time in syntactic contaminations, with shared elements identifiable at different points in the overall structure (note, e.g., that the verb in final position is marked for plural). Syntactic contaminations in German also seem to have a different status in the grammars of interactants, resulting in a different treatment

figures centrally in defining pivots. Some researchers base these distinctions on claims about how pauses were supposedly placed in these constructions (Karg 1925). Additionally, there are several theories on how pivot constructions may have developed out of other syntactic structures and about pivot constructions as the precursor of certain modern structures, such as the relative clause (Scheutz 1992: 262). The present discussion of anacolutha is only concerned with spoken texts. Thus, the above research was not discussed in this study. For an extensive review, see Poncin (2003). .  See, for example, studies on self-repair in German (Auer 2005a; Egbert 2002a; Fox et al. 2006; Rieger 2003; Schönfeldt & Golato 2003; Tischer 1997; Uhmann 1997b, 2001; T. Weber 1998) and work on parentheticals in spoken German (Auer 2005a; Schönherr 1993; Stoltenburg 2007).

 Pivots in German Conversation

in interaction: In my data, the (rare) examples that may fall in this category of syntactic contaminations are regularly followed by markers of trouble, for instance pauses and repair initiations that suggest a problem with the “linguistic packaging” rather than with the action performed by the turn in which the structure occurs. Thus, we can note that interactants orient to structures such as example (7.3) as problematic. Pivot constructions, on the other hand, do not seem to present problems for co-participants in terms of linguistic processing: Walker (2007: 2238) notes for his English data that “there are no cases of other-initiated repair – e.g., ‘what’ ‘huh’ ‘sorry’ – following turns built with pivots, which would be one kind of evidence for problems in their interpretation.” My data corroborate this finding. If problems are indicated following pivot turns (e.g., by pauses), they can be shown to be the result of sequential problems, not processing difficulties. That is, they follow pivot turns that perform a dispreferred action (as in instance (6.9) aussuchen) or a sequential deletion of the co-participant’s talk (as in segment (3.5) bessa). In contrast to syntactic contaminations, pivot constructions can thus be said to constitute an established practice in spoken interaction. They are a systematic resource that speakers recognize as patterns and use to accomplish specific interactional tasks. Findings for “garden-path sentence,” another type of construction that appears similar to syntactic pivot constructions point to the need for a functional, usagebased categorization of complex sentence-level phenomena. In garden-path sentences, as in pivot constructions, the emergence of a specific syntactic element makes necessary a reanalysis of the function of prior elements. Such sentences are commonly used in psycholinguistics as part of experiments designed to illustrate that natural language processing occurs one word at a time. Consider the following examples: (7.4) (takenˉfromˉFerreira,ˉChristianson,ˉ&ˉHollingworthˉ2001) While Anna dressed the baby spit up on the bed

As the structure surfaces in time, the NP the baby is interpreted as the object of the verb dressed. Once spit up is uttered, however, this interpretation is not tenable any more and the syntactic function of the baby is revised. Such structures are generally invented and used in reading experiments to uncover, on the basis of participant’s (mis)interpretations, the cognitive representation of garden path sentences and thus fundamental structures of syntactic parsing. They are interesting for my work for two reasons: Firstly, they are typically categorized as ungrammatical by readers (Matthews 1979). Secondly, it has been shown that they involve considerably longer processing times or more attention than non-garden-path equivalents (Christianson 2008; Ferreira et al. 2001). Thus, similar to syntactic contaminations, garden path sentences present parsing problems for recipients because of



Chapter 7.  Conclusion 

linguistic ambiguities and because of a mismatch between projected and actual continuation of the structure. Unlike syntactic contaminations, however, they closely resemble the pivot constructions discussed in the present study (specifically the modified type, see Chapter 2). Despite the fact that both make necessary a reinterpretation and reprojection of a structure in progress, the fact that garden path sentences (and not pivot constructions) present problems for recipients seems to be a function of language mode or text type. Garden path sentences are presented to participants for reading and, although they are typically flanked by “context sentences” (Christianson 2008: 4), these provide semantic context only. It stands to reason that in naturally occurring interaction, such structures would either be disambiguated by articulatory details (e.g., a prosodic break after dressed) or be interpretable as systematic syntactic resources (that is, as actual pivots) through the sequential context in which they occur. Thus, the study of pivot constructions in use underscores the importance of prosody and of dialogic structures for meaning-making in interaction. 7.2.3  Linguistic units in spoken language This study has shown that pivot constructions are produced as one coherent unit by speakers and perceived as such by co-participants. The former finding is supported by the phonetic features of the talk; the latter is evidenced in the fact that co-participants typically do not start speaking at the point at which a pre-pivot+pivot structure could be syntactically complete (after bone in segment (7.1) or after dokter in (7.2)). Rather, they wait until the end of the post-pivot talk to begin speaking. This suggests “an orientation to the absence of transition relevance” (Walker 2007: 2221) at the end of the pivot element and thus an orientation to the construction as one turn constructional unit (TCU). Sacks et al. (1974) note that TCUs are highly sensitive to their positioning within the turn and sequence and are therefore not equivalent to structural units such as “sentence,” “clause,” “phrase” etc. in traditional linguistics. While the boundaries of a TCU may coincide with boundaries of such structural units (cf. Lerner 1991), TCUs may also be much smaller: A sound, a single word, or a gesture may suffice to constitute a TCU or a complete turn (for examples in German see, e.g., Auer 2005b; Barske in press; Betz & Golato 2008; Egbert 2002a; Harren 2001; Streeck 1993). Additionally, pivot constructions demonstrate that TCUs may be built of units resembling clauses and sentences, yet still as a whole not correspond to any pre-defined linguistic category. From a normative sentence perspective, pivot constructions challenge “a basic principle of syntax, namely that one and the same syntactic function can occur only once in a given sentence” (Scheutz 2005: 126); however, they are produced

 Pivots in German Conversation

and processed as well-formed structures. It follows that pivot constructions should be regarded as systematic, meaningful units in spoken German interaction. Selting’s discussion and preliminary categorization of such structures as “a special case of a possible sentence in spoken language for constructing special turns in conversation” and “special kinds of TCUs” (1998a: 239–240, 255) echoes this advocated classification of pivot constructions as genuine communicative units in interaction. Moreover, the syntactic flexibility observed for pivot constructions (and for other types of turn continuations, cf. Couper-Kuhlen and Ono (2007), Auer (2007b)) necessitates the theoretical conclusion that the usefulness of the traditional notion of the sentence as a fundamental and clearly defined linguistic unit is limited for the analysis of grammar in interaction (Linell 2005; Ono & Thompson 1995; see also Norén 2007 for a discussion of this point).

7.3  Directions for further research 7.3.1  Phonetic features of pivot constructions in German This study has emphasized that syntactic pivot constructions are not an exclusively “syntactic” phenomenon (see especially Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, Section 3.1 and the discussion of segment (3.7) weine). Syntactic, semantic, and prosodic resources contribute to the characteristic gestalt of a pivot construction. Phonetic features (pitch, loudness, intonation contour, and articulation rate) in particular are crucial in marking out similarities and differences between pivot constructions and other turn-extending practices or between pivot constructions and verb-first constructions in German. By showing that the phonetic design of an utterance and its function are closely intertwined and that phonetic characteristics may serve to differentiate between different types of turn structures, this study also makes a contribution to the growing body of work in German interactional linguistics that focuses on the function of prosody and its connection to meaning-making in conjunction with syntax and lexis (e.g., Auer 1996a, 1999; Auer & Rönfeld 2004, Betz & Golato 2008; Golato & Fagyal 2008; Kern 2007; Müller 1996; Rabanus 2003; Selting 1988, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 2004b, 2005a, 2007b). The descriptions of phonetic features of pivot constructions in this study were based to a large extent on auditory analysis only. An acoustic analysis of the boundaries surrounding the pivot element, for example with Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2007), should constitute a logical next step in developing the present analysis of the phonetics of pivot constructions. In connection with further findings on the sound-level systematics of turn construction and turn continuation in



Chapter 7.  Conclusion 

German (cf. Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007; Kern & Selting 2006),113 a systematic acoustic analysis may also contribute to uncovering further cross-linguistic similarities and differences in the fine-grained prosodic design of pivot construction (cf. Norén 2007; Walker 2007). Further avenues for research include the detailed study of other functions of syntactic pivot constructions and the contrastive study of pivot constructions across languages, as outlined below. 7.3.2  Other interactional functions of pivot constructions in German This study described a spectrum of interactional environments and levels of functions associated with syntactic pivot constructions, ranging from very specialized (and, it seems, routinized) practices for rendering a previous action as a word search to highly flexible resources for dealing with misalignment of various kinds, including trouble that can be said to originate with the recipient (e.g., participation status) and trouble that can be attributed to a speaker (e.g., recipient design, word finding trouble). The diverse functions of pivot constructions were also found to correlate to a certain extent with different structural types of pivots. This study makes no claim of being comprehensive in describing the different functions that pivot structures can serve in interactions. There are other uses of this structure, some of which I have already pointed to in passing, that present promising avenues for future research (see also Norén 2007 for aspects of pivot constructions that merit further investigation). I will single out only one function here, because it connects to already established research on other aspects of the syntax of spoken German: the use of pivot constructions as a quotation marker. Research on reported discourse in German (Golato 2000a, 2002a, 2002b; Günthner 1997a, 1997b, 1999b, 2002, 2007; Streeck 2002; Vlatten[Golato] 1997) shows that speakers have different resources available to mark the beginnings and ends of quoted material in interaction. One notable resource to introduce speech and gesture as quoted material is the quotative und ich so/und er so /“and I like/ and he like” in story-tellings (Golato 2000a; Streeck 2002), strikingly similar to the English and I’m like/and he’s like. For reporting on past decisions and in troubles telling, Golato (2002a, 2002b) further finds that speakers typically use the verb sagen/“say” in the German conversational past tense, followed by the quoted material in direct discourse. To mark the end of a quote, German, unlike for instance Japanese (Hayashi 1997), does not use a lexical or morphological marker, such as .  See also the ongoing international research project “Interactional Linguistics in crosslinguistic perspective: Swedish-German-English,” led by J. Anward, E. Couper-Kuhlen, P. Linell and M. Selting.

 Pivots in German Conversation

a particle or enclitic. Instead, “German speakers use supra-segmental features or turn-exit devices to mark the end of reported speech” (Vlatten[Golato] 1997: 200; for practices in English, see Klewitz & Couper-Kuhlen 2000). In my data, I found that pivot constructions can be used as frames for quotation as well, and thus to mark the boundaries of quoted material, as in the following example: (7.5) deˉmaunenˉ[Oˉ03-A,ˉ161] 1 M:ˉ hia f-(b)racht mich trä him. >sä ich< lä:s mich he dr-(b)rings-sbjv1 me then home. >said I< lea:ve me he’dˉdr-ˉ(t)akeˉmeˉhomeˉthen.ˉ>Iˉsaid<ˉlea:veˉme 2

zefriden >sä ich< echˉfor nau miat diese maunen ha:esi. inˉpeace >said I< Iˉdrive-sbjv1 now with these aunts here. aloneˉ>Iˉsaid<ˉI’mˉgoingˉnowˉwithˉtheseˉauntsˉhe:re.

This use of pivot constructions in narratives is also noted in passing by Scheutz (2005) for his data of Colloquial Austrian German. This suggests that speakers of German indeed seem to use pivot constructions systematically to (1) mark the end of reported discourse (compare the use of pivots for demarcating activities described in Chapter 5) and/or (2) “to differentiate between various individuals in a narrative” (Scheutz 2005: 123; a similar, albeit more generalized, function is suggested by Norén 2007: 124–126, for Swedish). This preliminary finding does not necessarily contradict the findings by Golato (2000a, 2002a, 2002b): In my data, the strategy exemplified in (7.5) is almost exclusively used by speakers of one specific variety of German: Siebenbürger Sächsisch. Only one out of 22 collected examples of this phenomenon is produced by a speaker of another variety. Moreover, I found no equivalent for the quotative format und ich so/und er so /“and I(’m) like/and he(’s) like” in 10.5 hours of taped conversations of Siebenbürger Sächsisch (including telephone and face-to-face, two- and multi-party interactions), which suggests that this specific practice may simply not be available to speakers of this variety of German. If we consider yet another observation that contrast with Golato’s (2002a) findings for Colloquial Standard German, viz. that speakers of Siebenbürger Sächsisch in my data use Konjunktiv I (subjunctive I for expressing reported actions) quite frequently, it seems plausible that the resources for quoting and reporting discourse may indeed vary across varieties of German. These are exploratory observations, but they suggest that an in-depth study of the use of pivot constructions as frames for quotation may not only shed further light on the use of syntactic pivot constructions but also extend existing research on the organization of reported discourse. Moreover, such work may uncover similarities and differences in practices for constructing larger units in discourse (e.g., narratives) between varieties of one language.



Chapter 7.  Conclusion 

7.3.3  Pivot constructions as a syntactic practice across languages The outline of one further function of pivot constructions in spoken interaction provided in section 7.3.2 has suggested that a comparison of the form and functions of syntactic structures across varieties of one language can inform other work within grammar and interaction (cf., similarly, existing work at the interface of interactional linguistics, prosody, and sociolinguistics, e.g., Kern & Selting 2006; Selting 2005b, 2006). Another promising area of inquiry would be comparative work on the availability and shape of syntactic pivot constructions across languages and groups of languages that share certain syntactic ordering principles. At the beginning of this study (cf. Chapter 2) and at different points in the analysis sections, I pointed to specific characteristics of the syntax of spoken German that make pivot structures not only possible but may also account for their frequent use in spoken German. These characteristics include the relative flexibility of German with respect to word order in verb-second clauses (particularly for the pre-verbal position) and the availability of strong right-hand syntactic closure in sentences that exhibit a sentence brace structure. The latter, in turn, allows for far-reaching syntactic projections in German. Such language-specific factors have been identified as relevant in usage-based studies of syntactic phenomena across languages (Couper-Kuhlen & Ono 2007; Fox et al. 1996; Hayashi 2005) and may account for differences not only in the structure but also in the perceived frequency of pivot constructions in German and English (and for certain similarities between German and Swedish, a verb-second language).114 I also noted a connection between pivot type and relative frequency of occurrence in a certain language. Certain types of pivot constructions, for instance, seem to be less common in German than in English, namely those in which the shift from pre-pivot+pivot to pivot+post-pivot involves a change in the syntactic function of the pivot element itself. I suggested that this may be explained by the presence or absence of morphological marking (see Chapter 2, Section 2.4.3.2): In German, it is more

.  Refer to Norén (2007) for a basic outline of Swedish grammar. It should be noted that this is mostly an impressionistic observation, as no comparative studies exist. Consider, however, that Walker (2007: 2220) found 33 instances of pivot constructions in his database of 11 hours of (British and American) English telephone conversations. This study reports 219 instances in a corpus of approximately twice the size (and including face-to-face data, with relatively fewer examples found there). Scheutz (2005: 104–5) bases his study of pivot constructions in (mostly Austrian) German on a collection of approximately 300 instances from face-to-face interactions, but does not note the size of his corpus. For Swedish, a V2 language with rules for the topological front-field of a sentence that are similar to German, Nóren (2007: 54) reports 169 examples of pivot constructions in a corpus of 31 hours (audio and video) of both institutional and mundane interactions.

 Pivots in German Conversation

likely that the change of a noun from object to subject status leads to conflicting morphological requirements. Thus, it appears that the study of pivot constructions can unveil important connections between the grammatical resources of a language and the communicative practices they shape, thereby providing us “with a window into the relationship between language typology and the projectability of future courses of utterances” (Hayashi 2005: 5). The observations made in this study could serve as a starting point for a cross-linguistic study of pivot constructions in Germanic languages; as a next step, the scope of inquiry could be extended to investigate pivots in languages in which grammatical resources are organized differently (for example Japanese, a language in which syntactic projection is more local and the sentence itself is syntactically much less tightly knit than in English and German, Fox et al. 1996). In this line of inquiry, discovering the correlation between interactional function and linguistic form shows that “important cues to an understanding of what grammar is can be found in considering how grammar works in everyday social interactions” (Ford et al. 2003: 137) – and, it might be added, in considering how grammars vary cross-linguistically, leading to distinct patterns and practices in interaction.

Appendix A Transcription conventions a.1  J effersonian transcription conventions (cf. Atkinson & Heritage 1984: ix–xvi; Jefferson 1983b; 1985; Sacks et al. 1974: Appendix) [ start of overlap (simultaneous talk by two or more speakers) ] end of overlap is marked by right-hand brackets = 1. latching between turns: An utterance by one speaker starts immediately after the end of another speaker’s utterance without the normal intervening beat of silence. 2. latching between TCUs in one turn, i.e. uttered by one speaker 3. continuation of a speaker’s turn across lines of intervening transcript (0.5) silence; length of silence is timed relative to the speed of the surrounding talk micro pause (less than 1/10 of a second) (.) .hh audible inbreath hh audible outbreath hahahihi laughter; different vowels (i.e., e, i, a) indicate different quality of laugh tokens (h)(hh) laughter within a word; also selectively used for audible aspiration on plosives emphasis, usually higher pitch (underlining of one or more letters) word word higher volume relative to the surrounding talk ºwordº enclosed passage is quieter than the surrounding talk (also used as multiples) rising pitch on following vowel or syllable ↑ ↓ falling pitch on following vowel or syllable ↑word↑ enclosed stretch of talk is markedly higher in pitch than surrounding talk transcriber’s uncertain hearing (word) ( ) unintelligible stretch of talk (( )) transcriber’s additional comments or transcription of events >word< increase in tempo relative to the surrounding talk (also used as multiples)

 Pivots in German Conversation

〈word〉 slowing down in tempo relative to the surrounding talk (also used as multiples) : extension of the sound the colon follows (multiples used for longer extensions) abrupt ending or cut-off (glottal closure) – . TCU-final falling intonation , TCU-final continuing, slightly rising intonation ? TCU-final rising (“question”) intonation * location of or the beginning and end of embodied actions described by the transcriber; located above the actual transcript a.2  Transcription conventions based on GAT (Selting et al. 1998) word!

accentuated delivery

a.3  Other conventions used word_ TCU internal or TCU–final continuing intonation (used selectively) enclosed utterance is quoted speech (present tense direct speech) #word# (word) elements in parentheses in the third line of a transcript that are not unsure hearings: 1. approximate translations of the meaning of a discourse particle, e.g., the non-turn-initial particle ja is usually translated as “as you know” 2. elements not expressed in German but obligatory in English, e.g., objects or subjects in verb-first clauses

Appendix B Abbreviations for grammatical descriptions used in the interlinear gloss and in data discussions 2psg/ppl acc adv advp comp cont

– second person singular/plural ending on verb – accusative marker – adverbial – adverbial phrase – (verbal) complement – marker for progressive, imperfect, aspect; in spoken German, am (or beim)/“in the process of,” is combined with the infinitive of the verb and follows the finite form of sein/“to be”: Ich bin am arbeiten/“I am working” vs. ich arbeite/“I work.” – demonstrative dem fem – feminine inflection inf – infinitive form of the verb int – intensifier masc – masculine inflection np – noun phrase o/obj – object p – person pl – plural form pp – prepositional phrase ppt – past participle form pre – prefix prt  – (modal/response) particle refl – reflexive pronoun sg – singular s – subject sbjv/sbjv1 – subjunctive form/subjunctive I (Konjunktiv I, marks reported discourse) – verb v vp – verb phrase

References Alm, M. (2003). The Contribution of Sentence Position: The Word also in Spoken German. Lund, Sweden: Lund University. Altmann, H. (1981). Formen der »Herausstellung« im Deutschen. Rechtsversetzungen, Linksversetzungen, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J. (Eds). (1984). Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, P. (1979). Referenzierungssequenzen in Konversationen: das Beispiel ‘Ortsangaben’. Linguistische Berichte, 62, 94–106. Auer, P. (1981). Zur indexikalitätsmarkierenden Funktion der demonstrativen Artikelform in deutschen Konversationen. In G. Hindelang & W. Zillig (Eds), Sprache: Verstehen und Handeln (pp. 301–311). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Auer, P. (1984). Referential problems in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 627–648. Auer, P. (1991). Vom Ende deutscher Sätze. ZGL, 19, 139–157. Auer, P. (1992). The neverending sentence: Rightward expansions in spoken language. In M. Kontra & T. Váradi (Eds), Studies in Spoken Language: English, German, Finno-Ugric (pp. 41–59). Budapest: Liguistics Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Auer, P. (1993). Zur Verbspitzenstellung im gesprochenen Deutsch. Deutsche Sprache, 3, 193–222. Auer, P. (1996a). On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E.  Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds), Prosody in Conversation (pp. 57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, P. (1996b). The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics, 6, 295–322. Auer, P. (1997). Formen und Funktionen der Vor-Vorfeldbesetzung im gesprochenen Deutsch. In P. Schlobinski (Ed.), Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch (pp. 55–92) Obladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Auer, P. (2000). Online-Syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur, 85, 41–56. Auer, P. (2005a). Delayed self-repairs as a structuring device for complex turns in conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 75–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, P. (2005b). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36. Auer, P. (2006). Increments and more. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten. In A.  Deppermann, R.  Fiehler & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds), Grammatik und Interaktion (pp. 279–294). Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. Auer, P. (2007a). Syntax als Prozess. In H. Hausendorf (Ed.), Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion (pp. 95–142). Tübingen: Narr. Auer, P. (2007b). Why are increments such elusive objects? An afterthought. Pragmatics, Special issue “Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective”, 17(4), 647–658. Auer, P., Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Müller, F.E. (1999). Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Pivots in German Conversation Auer, P. & Di Luzio, A. (Eds). (1992). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, P. & Rönfeld, B. (2004). Prolixity as adaptation: Prosody and turn-taking in German conversation with a fluent aphasic. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. Ford (Eds), Sound Patterns in Interaction (pp. 171–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, P. & Uhmann, S. (1982). Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen. Deutsche Sprache, 10, 1–32. Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (1994). A very delayed acceptance to an invitation in a French conversation. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 11, 153–172. Barske, T. (2006). Co-Constructing Social Roles in German Business Meetings: A Conversation Analytic Study. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana. Barske, T. (in press). Same token, different actions: A conversation analytic study of social roles, embodied actions, and ok in German business meetings. Journal of Business Communication. Bavelas, J.B., Coates, L. & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 566–580. Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for “casual” “okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352. Beattie, G. & Shovelton, H. (2002). Lexical access in talk: A critical consideration of transitional probability and word frequency as possible determinants of pauses in spontaneous speech. Semiotica, 141, 49–71. Behagel, O. (1928). Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Bd. 3: Die Satzgebilde. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Bernsten, S. (2002). Using Conversation Analysis To Evaluate Pre-Sequences in Invitation, Offer, and Request Dialogues in ESL Textbooks. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana. Betz, E. (2006, May). Syntactic pivots as a strategy for overlap management in two varieties of German. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Helsinki, Finland. Betz, E. & Golato, A. (2008). Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token achja. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 58–98. Bilmes, J. (1988). The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society, 17, 161–181. Bilmes, J. (1997). Being interrupted. Language in Society, 26, 507–531. Boden, D. & Bielby, D.B. (1986). The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation. Language and Communication, 6, 73–89. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.6.12) [Computer program]. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www.praat.org/ Boon, P. (1982). Die Apokoinukonstruktion im Frühneuhochdeutschen. Indogermanische Forschungen, 87, 223–238. Butterworth, B. & Beattie, G. (1978). Gesture and silence as indicators of planning in speech. In R. Campbell & P. Smith (Eds), Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language (pp. 347–360). New York/London: Plenum. Button, G. (1987). Moving out of closings. In G.  Button & J.R.E. Lee (Eds), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 101–151). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Button, G. (1990). On varieties of closings. In G.  Psathas (Ed.), Interaction Competence (pp. 93–148). Lanham: University Press of America.



References 

Button, G. & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies 9, 3–55. Button, G. & Casey, N. (1989). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22, 61–92. Campion, P. & Langdon, M. (2004). Achieving multiple topic shifts in primary care medical consultations: A conversation analysis study in U.K. general practice. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26, 81–101. Chafe, W.L. & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In A. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds), Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 83–116). San Diego: Academic Press. Chafe, W.L. & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383–407. Christianson, K. (2008). Sensitivity to syntactic changes in garden path sentences. Journal of Psychlinguistic Research, Online pre-publication, April 29. Clayman, S. (1998). Gatekeeping in action: Editorial conferences and assessments of newsworthiness. American Sociological Review, 63, 178–199. Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M. & Bickel, B. (2008). Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses, revised February 2008. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ford, C. (Eds). (2004). Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ono, T. (2007). Incrementing in conversation. A comparison of methods in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, Special issue “Turn continuation in crosslinguistic perspective”, 17(4), 513–552. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (Eds). (1996). Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daden, I. & McLaren, M. (1978). Same-turn repair in Quiche (Maya) conversation: An initial report. Unpublished manuscript. Davidson, J.A. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action (pp. 102–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In J.M.  Atkinson & J.  Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 129–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, P. & Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Idiomatic expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 495–522. Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(2), 283–292. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds). (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Pivots in German Conversation Durrell, M. (2003). Using German. A Guide to Contemporary Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duvallon, O. & Routarinne, S. (2005). Parenthesis as a resource in the grammar of conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 45–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Egbert, M. (1996). Context sensitivity in conversation analysis: Eye gaze and the German repair initiator “bitte.”Language in Society, 25, 587–612. Egbert, M. (1997). Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multi-person conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 611–634. Egbert, M. (2002a). Der Reparaturmechanismus in deutschen und interkulturellen Gesprächen. Unpublished manuscript. Egbert, M. (2002b). Syntaktische Merkmale von “übrigens” in seiner Hauptposition: Im Mittelfeld des Verb-Zweit-Satzes. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 30, 1–22. Egbert, M. (2003). Die interaktionelle Relevanz einer gemeinsamen Vorgeschichte: Zur Bedeutung und Funktion von übrigens in deutschen Alltagsgesprächen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 22(2), 189–212. Egbert, M. (2004). Other-initiated repair and membership categorization – Some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1467–1498. Eisenberg, P. (1989). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart: Metzler. Enfield, N.J. & Stivers, T. (Eds). (2007). Person References in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferrara, K. (1992). The interactive achievement of a sentence: Joint productions in therapeutic discourse. Discourse Processes, 15, 207–228. Ferreira, F., Christianson, K. & Hollingworth, A. (2001). Misinterpretations of garden-path sentences: Implications for models of sentence processing and reanalysis. Journal of Psychlinguistic Research, 30(1), 3–20. Field, M. (2007). Increments in Navajo conversation. Pragmatics, Special issue “Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective”, 17(4), 637–646. Ford, C. (1993). Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ford, C. (1996). Interactional motivations for reference formulation: He had. This guy had, a beautiful, thirty-two O:lds. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 145–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ford, C. (2001). At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next. In M.  Selting & E.  Couper-Kuhlen (Eds), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 51–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ford, C., Fox, B. & Thompson, S.A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: The ‘TCU’ revisited. Pragmatics, 6, 427–454. Ford, C., Fox, B. & Thompson, S.A. (2002a). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. Ford, B. Fox & S.A. Thompson (Eds), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 14–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ford, C., Fox, B. & Thompson, S.A. (2002b). The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ford, C., Fox, B. & Thompson, S.A. (2003). Social interaction and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language, Volume 2 (pp. 119–143). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.



References 

Ford, C. & Thompson, S.A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, B. (1993). The Human Tutorial Dialogue Project. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fox, B., Hayashi, M. & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 185–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, B. & Jasperson, R. (1995). A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In P. Davis (Ed.), Alternative Linguistics (pp. 77–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fox, B., Maschler, Y. & Uhmann, S. (2006, May). A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Helsinki, Finland. Franck, D. (1980). Grammatik und Konversation. Königstein: Scriptor. Franck, D. (1985). Sentences in conversational turns: A case of syntactic “double bind”. In M. Dascal (Ed.), Dialogue (pp. 233–245). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fries, N. (1988). Über das Null-Topic im Deutschen. Forschungsprogramm Sprache und Pragmatik, Forschungsbericht 3, Lund, 19–49. Gardner, R. (2002). When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gärtner, K. (1969). Apo koinou bei Wolfram von Eschenbach. PBB, 91, 121–259. Gilles, P. (2001). Die Intonation der Weiterweisung: Ein Beitrag zur konversationsanalytisch orientierten Erforschung von Regionalintonation am Beispiel des Hamburgischen und Berlinischen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 29, 40–69. Givon, T. (1988). The pragmatics of word order: Predictability, importance, and attention. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (Eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology (pp. 243–284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Golato, A. (2000a). An innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so “and I’m like/and he’s like”. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 29–54. Golato, A. (2000b, September). Word Searches inside and outside of the classroom. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Madison, Wisconsin. Golato, A. (2002a). Grammar and interaction: Reported discourse and subjunctive in German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 21(1), 25–56. Golato, A. (2002b). Self-quotation in German: Reporting on past decisions. In T. Güldemann & M.V. Roncador (Eds), Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains (pp. 49–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Golato, A. (2006, Nov). Action and Topic Shifts in Conversation: The Case of 3rd position naja in German. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX. Golato, A. & Betz, E. (2008). German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 27, 7–37. Golato, A. & del Moral, C. (2004). From preposition to particle: de in word searches in Spanish. Unpublished manuscript.

 Pivots in German Conversation Golato, A. & Fagyal, Z. (2006, May). Two countours, two meanings: The intonation of jaja in German phone conversations. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody, Dresden, Germany. Abstract Book and CD-Rom Proceedings. Golato, A. & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody: A conversation analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 241–270. Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). New York: Irwing Publishers. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In M.  Atkinson & J.  Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 115–131. Goodwin, C. (1995). Sentence construction within interaction. In U. Quasthoff (Ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication (pp. 198–219). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent Vision. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 370–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–55. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. (1992). Context, activity, and participation. In P. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds), The Contextualization of Language (pp. 77–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goodwin, M. (1983). Searching for a word as an interactive activity. In J.N. Deely & M.D. Lenhart (Eds), Semiotics 1981 (pp. 129–138). New York: Plenum. Goodwin, M. & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51–75. Günthner, S. (1997a). Direkte und indirekte Rede in Alltagsgesprächen – Zur Interaktion von Syntax und Prosodie in der Redewiedergabe. In P. Schlobinski (Ed.), Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch (pp. 227–262). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Günthner, S. (1997b). Stilisierungsverfahren in der Redewiedergabe: Die ‘Überlagerung von Stimmen’ als Mittel der moralischen Verurteilung in Vorwurfsrekonstruktionen. In B.  Sandig & M.  Selting (Eds), Sprech- und Gesprächsstile. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Günthner, S. (1999a). Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte, 180, 409–446. Günthner, S. (1999b). Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 685–708. Günthner, S. (2000a). Grammatik im Gespräch. Zur Verwendung von wobei im gesprochenen Deutsch. Sprache und Literatur, 85(57–74). Günthner, S. (2000b). Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Grammatische, prosodische, rhetorisch-stilistische und interaktive Verfahren bei der Konstitution kommunikativer Muster und Gattungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.



References 

Günthner, S. (2002). Perspectivity in reported dialogues. The contextualization of evaluative stances in reconstructing speech. In C. Graumann & W. Kallmeyer (Eds), Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse (pp. 347–374). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Günthner, S. (2007). Ansätze zur Erforschung der ‘kommunikativen Praxis’: Redewiedergabe in der Alltagskommunikation. In V. Ágel & M. Hennig (Eds), Zugänge zur Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache (pp. 73–98). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Günthner, S. (2008). “Die Sache ist … ”: Eine Projektor-Konstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 27(1), 39–71. Hakulinen, A. & Selting, M. (2005a). Introduction. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 1–11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hakulinen, A. & Selting, M. (2005b). Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.R. & Alho, I. (2004). Iso Suomen Kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Harren, I. (2001). “Ne?” in Alltagsgesprächen – Interaktive Funktionen und Positionierung in Turn und Sequenz. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany. Hartog, J. (1996). Das genetische Beratungsgespräch. Instutionalisierte Kommunikation zwischen Experten und Nicht-Experten. Tübingen: Narr. Haupt, M. (1871 [reprint 1979]). Erec. Leipzig/Hildesheim: Olms. Hayashi, M. (1997). An exploration of sentence-final uses of the quotative particle in Japanese spoken discourse. In H.-M. Sohn & J. Haig (Eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6 (pp. 565– 581). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Hayashi, M. (2003a). Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hayashi, M. (2003b). Language and the body as resources for collaborative action: A study of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 109–141. Hayashi, M. (2004a). Discourse within a sentence: An exploration of postpositions in Japanese as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 33, 343–376. Hayashi, M. (2004b). Projection and grammar: Notes on the ‘action-projecting’ use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1337–1374. Hayashi, M. (2005). Joint turn construction through language and the body: Notes on embodiment in coordinated participation in situated activities. Semiotica, 156(1/4), 21–53. Hayashi, M., Mori, J. & Takagi, T. (2002). Contingent achievement of cotellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of talk, gaze, and gesture. In C Ford, B. Fox & S.A. Thompson (Eds), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 81–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hayashi, M. & Yoon, K.-e. (2006). A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language, 30(3), 485–540. Helasvuo, M.-L., Laakso, M. & Sorjonen, M.L. (2004). Searching for words: Syntactic and sequential construction of word search in conversations of Finnish speakers with aphasia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(1), 1–37. Helbig, G. (1988). Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Hennig, M. (2000). Tempus und Temporalität in geschriebenen und gesprochenen deutschen Texten. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

 Pivots in German Conversation Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. & Greatbach, D. (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman (Eds), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp. 93–137). Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. Hoffmann, L. (1991). Anakoluth und sprachliches Wissen. Deutsche Sprache, 19, 97–119. Holt, E. & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 35–61. Holzträger, F. (1912). Syntaktische Funktion der Wortformen im Nösnerischen. Unpublished Inaugural-Dissertation, Universität Tübingen, Germany. Hopper, P. (1988). Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in Context (pp. 117–134). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure (pp. 155–175). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Iványi, Z. (1997a). Tip-of-the-Tongue-Phänomene in alltäglichen Diskursen. Gedächtnistheoretische Überlegungen im Lichte der Gesprächsanalyse. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik, 4, 57–90. Iványi, Z. (1997b). Warum-Fragen in der Gesprächsanalyse. Eine Fallstudie über den Wortsuchprozess. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik, 4, 33–56. Iványi, Z. (2002). Gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung von Wortfindungsstörungen. In M. Schecker (Ed.), Wortfindung und Wortfindungsstörungen (pp. 62–76). Tübingen: Narr. Jefferson, G. (1972). Side Sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 294– 338). New York: The Free Press/Macmillan. Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 3(2), 181–199. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press. Jefferson, G. (1980). On “trouble-premonitory” response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 153–185. Jefferson, G. (1983a). Another failed hypothesis: Pitch/loudness as relevant to overlap resolution. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 38, 24 pages. Jefferson, G. (1983b). Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 28. Jefferson, G. (1983c). On a failed hypothesis: ‘conjunctionals’ as overlap-vulnerable. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 28, 36 pages. Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately nextpositioned matters. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 191–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3 (pp. 25–34). London: Academic Press. Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G.  Button & J.R.E. Lee (Eds), Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.



References 

Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35, 418–441. Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction Competence (pp. 63–92). Lanham: University Press of America. Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 1–30. Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin. Karg, F. (1925). Die Construction apo koinou im Mittelhochdeutschen (Syntaktische Studien 1). PBB, 49, 1–63. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63. Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kern, F. (2007). Prosody as a resource in children’s game explanations: Some aspects of turn construction and recipiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 111–133. Kern, F. & Selting, M. (2006). Einheitenkonstruktion im Türkendeutschen: Grammatische und prosodische Aspekte. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 25, 239–272. Kim, H. (2002). The form and function of next-turn repetition in English Conversation. Language Research, 38(1), 51–81. Kim, K.-h. (2007). Sequential organization of post-predicate elements in Korean conversation: Pursuing uptake and modulating action. Pragmatics, Special issue “Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective”, 17(4), 573–604. Kindt, W. (1994). Satzbegriff und gesprochene Sprache. Lingua, 94, 25–48. Kleinke, C.L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 78–100. Klewitz, G. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2000). Quote – Unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. InLiSt, Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 12, 1–34. Kohler, K. (1995). Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. König, W. (1989). Atlas zur Aussprache des Schriftdeutschen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. München: dtv. Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851–1877. Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kotschi, T. (2001). Formulierungspraxis als Mittel der Gesprächsaufrechterhaltung. In K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann & S. Sager (Eds), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 16.2, Gesprächslinguistik (pp. 1340–1348). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kurhila, S. (2006). Second Language Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lederer, H. (1969). Reference Grammar of the German Language. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Lerner, G. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(Spring), 167–177. Lerner, G. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458.

 Pivots in German Conversation Lerner, G. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13, 213–245. Lerner, G. (1996a). Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 303–321. Lerner, G. (1996b). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E.  Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A.  Thompson (Eds), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lerner, G. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk in interaction. In C. Ford, B. Fox & S.A. Thompson (Eds), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 225–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lerner, G. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177–201. Lerner, G. (2004a). 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, 151–185. Lerner, G. (Ed.). (2004b). Conversation Analysis: Papers from the First Generation. Amsterdam John Benjamins. Levelt, W.J.M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking. From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge/London: MIT Press. Lindström, J. (2006). Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(1), 81–117. Lindström, J. & Karlsson, S. (2005). Verb-first constructions as a syntactic and functional resource in (spoken) Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistic, 28(1), 97–131. Linell, P. (1982). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. Linköping, Sweden: University of Linköping. Linell, P. (2005). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge. Local, J., Kelly, J. & Wells, B. (1986). Towards a phonology of conversation: Turntaking in Tyneside English. Journal of Linguistics, 22, 411–437. Local, J. & Walker, G. (2004). Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multiaction turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1375–1403. Luke, K.-k. & Zhang, W. (2007). Retrospective turn continuation in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Pragmatics, Special issue “Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective”, 17(4), 605–636. Luke, K.K. & Pavlidou, T. (Eds). (2002). Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mandelbaum, J. (2005, July). Dealing delicately with delicate matters: Embedded self-correction as a method for removing possibly available unwanted hearings. Paper presented at the 9th International Pragmatics Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy. Matthews, R.J. (1979). Are the grammatical sentences of a language a recursive set? Synthese, 40, 208–224. Maynard, D.W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30(3/4), 263–290. Maynard, D.W. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 20(2), 93–130. McHoul, A. (Ed.). (2008). Journal of Pragmatics 40(5), Special Issue “Questions of Context in Studies of Talk and Interaction – Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis”. Amsterdam: Elsevier.



References 

Moerman, M. (1977). The preference for self-correction in a Thai conversational corpus. Language, 53(4), 872–882. Möllering, M. (2001). Teaching German modal particles: A corpus-based approach. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 130–151. Mondada, L. (2008, April). Exchanging glances while talking and driving. Paper presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium, Amsterdam, NL. Monzoni, C.M. (2008). Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of “pre-sequences”? Discourse Studies, 10, 73–87. Mori, J. & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completion. A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 195–219. Mörnsjö, M. (2002). V1 Declaratives in Spoken Swedish. Syntax, Information Structure, and Prosodic Pattern (Ph.D. Dissertation). Lund: Lund University. Müller, F.E. (1996). Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. In E.  Couper-Kuhlen & M.  Selting (Eds), Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies (pp. 131–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R. (Eds). (1997). The Language of Emotions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nordberg, B. (1999). On closings in alarm calls. Språk och stil, 8, 65–103. Norén, N. (2003a). Apokoinou i samtal. Samtalsgrammatik konstruktion och resurs för komplexa kommunikativa handlingar. Arbetsrapporter från TEMA K, http://www.tema. liu.se/tema-k/publ/index.html Norén, N. (2003b). Apokoinou som metod för hantering av turnkonkurrens och samtidigt tal i samtal. In B. Nordberg, L.K. Ericksson, K. Thelander & M. Thelander (Eds), Grammatik och samtal. Studier till minne av Mats Ericksson (pp. 189–198). Uppsala. Norén, N. (2007). Apokoinou in Swedish talk-in-interaction: A family of methods for grammatical construction and the resolving of local communicative projects (Ph.D.  Dissertation). Linköping: Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A. & Thompson, S.A. (Eds). (1996). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ogden, R. (2001). Turn transition, creak, and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31, 139–152. Ono, T. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2007). Increments in cross-linguistic perspective: Introductory remarks. Pragmatics, Special issue “Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective”, 17(4), 505–512. Ono, T. & Thompson, S. (1994). Unattached NPs in English conversation. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20, 402–419. Ono, T. & Thompson, S.A. (1995). What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P. Davis (Ed.), Alternative Linguistics. Descriptive and Theoretical Modes (pp. 213–271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ortner, H. (1983). Syntaktische hervorgehobene Konnektoren im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache, 11, 97–121. Pavlidou, T. (1994). Greek and German telephone closings: Patterns of confirmation and agreement. Pragmatics, 8(1), 79–94. Pavlidou, T. (1997). The last five turns: Preliminary remarks on closing in Greek and German telephone calls. International Journal on the Sociology of Language, 126, 145–162. Pavlidou, T. (1998). Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 487–511.

 Pivots in German Conversation Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment response: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J.N.  Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the Organisation of Conversational Interaction (pp. 79–112). New York: Academic Press. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In J.M.  Atkinson & J.  Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 152–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poncin, K. (2003). Apokoinukonstruktionen: empirische Untersuchung ihrer Verwendung in aufgabenorientierten Dialogen und Diskussion ihrer grammatischen Modellierbarkeit in einer Unifikationsgrammatik. Upublished doctoral Dissertation, Universität Bielefeld, Germany. Prevignano, C. & Thibault, P.J. (2003). Discussing Conversation Analysis: The Work of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Quirk, R. & Greenbaum, S. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Longman. Rabanus, S. (2003). Intonation and syllable structure: A cross-linguistic study of German and Italian conversations. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 22(1), 86–122. Raitaniemi, M. & Harren, I. (2006, May). The sequential structure of German telephone closings. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA), Helsinki, Finland. Rath, R. (1976). Performanzerscheinungen im gesprochenen Deutsch. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (Vol.  2, pp. 289–301). Stuttgart: Hochschulverlag. Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone ‘so’ in sequences of talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2), 185–218. Raymond, G. & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. Rieger, C. (2003). Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 47–69. Robinson, J. (2004). The sequential organization of ‘explicit’ apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(3), 291–330. Rönfeld, B. & Auer, P. (2002). Erinnern und Vergessen. Erschwerte Wortfindung als interaktives und soziales Problem. In M.  Schecker (Ed.), Wortfindung und Wortfindungsstörungen (pp. 77–108). Tübingen: Narr. Rossano, F. (2005, July). ‘When it’s over is it really over?’ On the effects of sustained gaze vs. gaze withdrawal at sequence possible completion. Paper presented at the 9th International Pragmatics Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy. Rossano, F. (2006, Nov). Gaze behavior in multi-unit turns. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communications Association, San Antonio, TX. Rossano, F. (2007, Nov). Projecting types of actions and displaying recognition of them through visible behavior. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Rossano, F. (2008, April). Gaze, questions and normativity: Using visible behavior to project, align with and close courses of action. Paper presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium, Amsterdam, NL. Rossano, F. & Levinson, S.C. (in press). Gaze, questioning and culture. In J.  Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



References 

Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H. (1986). Some considerations of a story told in ordinary conversation. Poetics, 15, 127–138. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (Eds), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation [2 Vol]. Oxford: Blackwell. Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E.A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Sandig, B. (1973). Zur historischen Kontinuität normativ diskriminierter syntaktischer Muster in spontaner Sprechsprache. Deutsche Sprache, 1, 37–57. Schegloff, E.A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D.  Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 75–119). New York: The Free Press/Macmillan. Schegloff, E.A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T.  Givon (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax (pp. 261–286). New York: Academic Press. Schegloff, E.A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’ Sociological Inquiry, 50, 104–152. Schegloff, E.A. (1981). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981; Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, Washington, D.C. Schegloff, E.A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E.A. (1987a). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101–114. Schegloff, E.A. (1987b). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch & N. Smelzer (Eds), The Micro-Macro Link (pp. 207–234). Berkeley: University of California Press. Schegloff, E.A. (1987c). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In G.  Button & J.R.E. Lee (Eds), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 70–85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Schegloff, E.A. (1988). Presequences and indirection. Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62. Schegloff, E.A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of inter­ subjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345. Schegloff, E.A. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schegloff, E.A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Pivots in German Conversation Schegloff, E.A. (1997). Third turn repair. In G. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin & J. Baugh (Eds), Towards a Science of Language, Vol. 2 (pp. 31–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schegloff, E.A. (1998). Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 41, 235–263. Schegloff, E.A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63. Schegloff, E.A. (2002). Accounts of conduct in interaction: Interruption, Overlap, and Turntaking. In J.H. Turmer (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 287–321). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Schegloff, E.A. (2004). On dispensability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 95–149. Schegloff, E.A. (2005). On complainability. Social Problems, 52(4), 449–476. Schegloff, E.A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N.J.  Enfield & S.C.  Levinson (Eds), Roots of Human sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction (pp. 70–96). Oxford, UK: Berg. Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. Schegloff, E.A., Ochs, E. & Thompson, S. (1996). Introduction. In E.  Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.  Thompson (Eds), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge: Cambridge ­University Press. Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. Scheutz, H. (1992). Apokoinukonstruktionen: Gegenwartssprachliche Erscheinungsformen und Aspekte ihrer historischen Entwicklung. In A.  Weiss (Ed.), Dialekte im Wandel. Referate der 4. Tagung zur Bayerisch-Österreichischen Dialektologie, Salzburg 5.-7.10.1989 (pp. 243–264). Göppingen: Kümmerle. Scheutz, H. (1997). Satzinitiale Voranstellung im gesprochenen Deutsch als Mittel der Themensteuerung und Referenzkonstitution. In P. Schlobinski (Ed.), Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch (pp. 27–54). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Scheutz, H. (2001). On clausal combining: The case of weil in spoken German. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 111–139). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Scheutz, H. (2005). Pivot constructions in spoken German. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 103–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schlieben-Lange, B. (1979). Bairisch eh – halt – f˜ei. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache (pp. 307–317). Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter. Schlobinski, P. (1997). Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Schönfeldt, J. & Golato, A. (2003). Repair in chats: A conversation analytic approach. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 241–284. Schönherr, B. (1993). Prosodische und nonverbale Signale für Parenthesen. Deutsche Sprache, 3, 223–243. Schröder, P. (1997). Zur Reinterpretation traditioneller grammatischer Kategorien im Rahmen interaktionsorientierter Grammatikkonzepte: “Anakoluthe” mit ikonischer Qualität. In H. Pors, L. Falster Jakobsen & F.T. Stubkjær (Eds), Sprachgermanistik in Skandinavien III (Akten des IV. Nordischen Germanistentreffens auf Schloss Sandbjerg 5. bis 8. Juni 1996) (pp. 57–80). Arhus: Handelshøjskolen i Århus.



References 

Schröder, P. (2006). Das Vor-Vorfeldkonzept aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht: Plädoyer für eine handlungsorientierte Einheitenbildung in einer Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache. In A. Deppermann, R. Fiehler & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds), Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang zwischen grammatischen Strukturen und Interaktionsprozessen (pp. 203–243). Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. Schröder, W. (1985). Die constructio apo koinou im jüngeren Titurel. In W.E. Eroms, et al. (Ed.), Studia linguistica et philologica [Festschrift K. Matzel] (pp. 263–273). Heidelberg: Winter. Schwartz, J. (1980). The negotiation for meaning: Repair in conversations between second language learners of English. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research (pp. 138–153). Rowley, MA: Newberry House. Schwitalla, J. (2003). Gesprochenes Deutsch. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Selting, M. (1987a). Imagearbeit bei der Behandlung von Verständigungsproblemen in Gesprächen. In W. Abraham & R. Århammar (Eds), Linguistik in Deutschland. Akten des 21. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Groningen 1986 (pp. 325–337). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Selting, M. (1987b). Verständigungsprobleme. Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der BürgerVerwaltungs-Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Selting, M. (1988). The role of intonation in the organizatin of repair and problem handling sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 293–322. Selting, M. (1993). Voranstellungen vor den Satz. Zur grammatischen Form und interaktiven Funktion von Linksversetzung und freiem Thema im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 21, 291–319. Selting, M. (1994). Konstruktionen am Satzrand als interaktive Ressourcen in natürlichen Gesprächen. In B. Haftka (Ed.), Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie (pp. 299–318). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Selting, M. (1995a). Der ‘mögliche Satz’ als interaktiv relevante syntaktische Kategorie. Linguistische Berichte, 158, 298–325. Selting, M. (1995b). Prosodie im Gespräch. Aspekte einer interaktionellen Analyse am Beispiel der Bürger-Verwaltungs-Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Selting, M. (1996a). On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn­constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics, 6(3), 357–388. Selting, M. (1996b). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of socalled “astonished” questions in repair initiation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds), Prosody in Conversation (pp. 231–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selting, M. (1998a). Fragments of TCUs as deviant cases of unit production in conversational talk. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 229– 258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Selting, M. (1998b). TCUs and TRPs: The construction of ‘units’ in conversational talk. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 4, 1–48. Selting, M. (1999). Kontinuität und Wandel der Verbstellung von ahd. wanta bis gwd. weil. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 27, 167–204. Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517. Selting, M. (2001). Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 229–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Pivots in German Conversation Selting, M. (2004a). Listen: Sequenzielle und prosodische Struktur einer kommunikativen Praktik  – eine Untersuchung im Rahmen der Interaktionalen Linguistik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 23, 1–46. Selting, M. (2004b). The ‘upward’ staircase intonation contour in the Berlin vernacular: An example of the analysis of regionalized intonation as an interactional resource. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. Ford (Eds), Sound Patterns in Interaction (pp. 201–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Selting, M. (2005a). Syntax and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in conversation. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Selting, M. (2005b). Variation der Intonation: Unterschiede zwischen Standard und Stadtsprache am Beispiel des Berlinischen. In L.M. Eichinger & W. Kallmeyer (Eds), Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache? Jahrbuch 2004 des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache (pp. 247–277). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Selting, M. (2006). Dresden Fallbogen contours as an example of regionalized German intonation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 49(3/4), 289–326. Selting, M. (2007a). Grammatik des gesprochenen Deutsch im Rahmen der Interaktionalen Linguistik. In V. Ágel & M. Hennig (Eds), Zugänge zur Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache (pp. 99–135). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Selting, M. (2007b). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 483–526. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barden, B., Bergmann, J., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Günther, S., et al. (1998). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte, 34, 91–122. Selting, M. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds). (2001). Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Seo, M.-S. & Koshik, I. (2007, April). A conversation-analytic study of non-verbal repair initiators used in ESL conversational tutoring. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Costa Mesa, CA. Seppänen, E.-L. & Laury, R. (2007). Complement clauses as turn continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-clause. Pragmatics, Special issue “Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective”, 17(4), 553–572. Sidnell, J. (2005). Talk and Practical Epistemology. The social life of knowledge in a Caribbean community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sorjonen, M.L. (1996). Repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In E.  Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S. Thompson (Eds), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 277–327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sorjonen, M.L. (1997). Korjausjäsennys. In L. Tainio (Ed.), Keskustelunanalyysin Perusteet (pp. 111–137). Tampere/Finland: Vastapaino. Sorjonen, M.L. (2001). Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Steensig, J. (2001). Sprog i Virkeligheden. Bidrag til en Interaktionel Lingvistik. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Steensig, J. & Drew, P. (2008). Special issue on questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies 10(1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stein, S. (2003). Textgliederung. Einheitenbildung im geschriebenen und gesprochenen Deutsch: Theorie und Empirie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



References 

Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: When nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 29–55. Stoltenburg, B. (2007). Wenn Sätze in die Auszeit gehen ... In V. Ágel & M. Hennig (Eds), Zugänge zur Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache (pp. 73–98). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60(4), 275–299. Streeck, J. (1994). Gesture as communication II: The audience as co-author. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 27(3), 239–267. Streeck, J. (1995). On projection. In E.  Goody (Ed.), Interaction and Social Intelligence (pp. 84–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Streeck, J. (1996). A little Ilokano grammar as it appears in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 189–213. Streeck, J. (2002). Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the uses and evolution of so and like. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 581–596. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). Request Sequences: The Intersection of Grammar, Interaction and Social Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-projection and construction. In H.  Tanaka (Ed.), Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation: A study in Grammar and Interaction (Chapter 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tanaka, H. (2001). The implementation of possible cognitive shifts in Japanese conversation: Complementizers as pivotal devices. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 81–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thim-Mabrey, C. (1988). Satzadverbiale und andere Ausdrücke im Vor-Vorfeld. Deutsche Sprache, 16, 55–67. Tischer, B. (1997). Self-repair in dialogues: Rules for automatic syntactic processing. Linguistische Berichte, 170, 312–344. Uhmann, S. (1996). Nur ein Sturm im Lexikonglas: Zur aktuellen Verbstellungsvariation in weil-Sätzen. Wuppertaler Arbeitspapiere zur Sprachwissenschaft, 13, 1–26. Uhmann, S. (1997a). Grammatische Regeln und konversationelle Strategien. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Uhmann, S. (1997b). Selbstreparaturen in Alltagsdialogen: Ein Fall für eine integrative Konversationstheorie. In P. Schlobinski (Ed.), Syntax des Gesprochenen Deutsch (pp. 157–180). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Uhmann, S. (2001). Some arguments for the relevance of syntax to same-sentence self-repair in everyday German conversation. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 373–404). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vlatten[Golato], A. (1997). Quotatives, Reported Speech, and Constructed Dialogue in Everyday German Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Vorreiter, S. (2003). Turn continuations: Towards a cross-linguistic classification. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 39, http://www.rz.uni-potsdam.de/u/inlist. Walker, G. (2004a). On some interactional and phonetic properties of increments to turns in talk-in-interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. Ford (Eds), Sound Patterns in Interaction (pp. 147–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Pivots in German Conversation Walker, G. (2004b). The Phonetic Design of Turn Endings, Beginning, and Continuations in Conversation. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of York, England. Walker, G. (2007). On the design and use of pivots in everyday English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2217–2243. Weber, E.G. (1993). Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weber, T. (1998). Shared Background and Repair in German Conversation. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. Wermke, M., Klosa, A., Kunkel-Razum, K. & Scholze-Stubenrecht, W. (Eds). (2001). Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Weydt, H. & Hentschel, E. (1983). Kleines Abtönungswörterbuch. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Partikeln und Interaktion (pp. 3–24). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Whittington, A. (2007). A Conversation Analytic Comparison of English ‘so’ and German ‘also’. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana. Willey, B. (2001). Candidate Solutions to Word Searches Proffered for Confirmation in the ESL Classroom. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana. Wu, R.-J.R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. ­Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Yoon, K.-E. (2006). Complaint Talk in Korean Conversation. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana. Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L. & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache (3 vols). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Name index

A Alm,  78 Altmann,  37, 59 Atkinson,  3, 14, 170 Auer,  2, 4, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23–26, 32, 37, 38, 40–42, 59, 75, 78, 81, 98, 100, 101, 102, 109, 124, 127, 130, 135, 143, 174, 175, 177, 178 B Barraja-Rohan,  155 Barske,  7, 12, 31, 87, 89, 177 Beach,  6, 47, 96 Beattie,  107, 111 Behagel,  2 Bernsten,  155 Betz,  2, 3, 5, 95, 125, 177, 178 Bielby,  96 Bilmes,  4, 72, 75 Boden,  96 Boersma,  178 Boon,  2 Butterworth,  107 Button,  2, 49, 75, 92, 96, 104–5 C Campion,  96 Casey,  9, 75, 96, 104–5 Chafe,  174 Christianson,  176–77 Clayman,  77 Couper-Kuhlen,  2, 3, 4, 13, 21, 32, 38, 39, 41, 59, 173, 178, 179, 180, 181 D Daden,  100 Danielewicz,  174 Davidson,  21, 40, 75, 76, 155 Drew,  3, 6–7, 73, 96, 104, 155, 171 Duncan,  42 Duranti,  3, 14

Durrell,  37, 156 Duvallon,  41 E Egbert,  3, 6, 10, 37, 60, 85, 97, 98, 99, 119, 137, 158, 175, 177 Eisenberg,  17, 18, 47, 59, 94, 148, 153 Enfield,  113, 172 F Fagyal,  75, 116, 118, 178 Ferrara,  4 Ferreira,  176 Ford,  2, 4, 13, 21, 31, 32, 39, 40, 41, 42, 172–174, 181 Fox,  3, 4, 13, 32, 41, 44, 97, 98–100, 104, 119, 135, 169, 172, 181, 182 Franck,  2, 7, 10, 31, 37, 169 Fries,  25 G Gärtner,  2 Glenn,  165 Goffman,  100 Golato,  3, 14, 23, 73, 75, 78, 85, 96, 98, 100–101, 107, 108, 116, 118, 125, 135, 156, 175, 177, 178, 179–180 Goodwin, C.,  1, 3, 4, 10, 39, 60, 61, 84, 85, 96, 98, 100–101, 123, 172 Goodwin, M.,  4, 10, 39, 85, 98, 99, 123 Greenbaum,  148, 158 Günthner,  4, 17, 24, 37, 153, 179 H Hakulinen,  7, 11, 39, 168, 173 Harren,  48, 49, 50, 177 Hartog,  111 Haupt,  2

Hayashi,  3, 4, 10, 32, 85, 98, 99, 100–102, 105, 108, 120, 133, 179, 181, 182 Helasvuo,  98, 100 Helbig,  142, 149, 156–157 Hennig,  17 Hentschel,  156 Heritage,  3, 14, 75, 77, 142, 170 Hoffmann,  6, 100 Hollingworth,  176 Holt,  6–7, 73, 96, 104, 171 Holzträger,  59 Hopper,  2, 24, 33, 94 Hutchby,  9 I Iványi,  98, 100, 111, 172 J Jefferson,  2, 3, 6, 11, 44, 47, 54, 77, 84, 85, 96, 105, 108, 130, 137, 153, 166–167, 170, 171, 172 K Karg,  2, 175 Kelly,  41 Kendon,  38 Kim, K-H.,  21 Kim, H.,  158 Kindt,  100 Klewitz,  180 Klosa,  119 Kohler,  116 König,  83 Koshik,  99, 112, 138, 142, 159 Kotschi,  7 Kunkel-Razum,  119 Kurhila,  10, 98, 99, 112 L Laakso,  98 Langacker,  51 Lederer,  149

  Name index Lerner,  4, 5, 31, 32, 38, 40–41, 43, 72, 81, 91, 94, 163, 165, 170, 177 Levelt,  100 Lindström,  24, 37 Local,  38, 40–43 Luke,  21, 49 M Mandelbaum,  11, 137, 138, 167, 172 Matthews,  176 Maynard,  2, 72, 77, 80, 96, 105, 172 McLaren,  100 Minis,  3, 40 Moerman,  100 Möllering,  60, 107, 142, 149, 156 Mori,  4 N Nordberg,  7 Norén,  7, 10, 25, 31, 36, 67, 86, 132, 133, 169, 178, 179, 180, 181 O Ochs,  2, 3, 11, 39, 51, 173 Ogden,  41 Ono,  3, 9, 13, 21, 32, 38, 41, 51, 59, 178, 179, 181 Ortner,  59 P Pavlidou,  49 Pomerantz,  75 Poncin,  2, 37, 169, 175 Prevignano,  170 Q Quirk,  148, 158 R Raitaniemi,  49 Raymond,  3, 75, 96, 142

Rieger,  98, 175 Robinson,  153 Rönfeld,  4, 9, 10, 42, 98, 100–101, 109, 124, 127, 130, 178 Routarinne,  41

Stivers,  3, 113, 116 Stoltenburg,  41, 102, 175 Strecker,  6 Streeck,  3, 4, 39, 51, 98, 100–101, 177, 179

S Sacks,  3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 20, 39–41, 43, 44, 49, 51, 73, 80, 81, 82, 84, 92, 96, 97, 128, 137, 155, 170, 177 Sandig,  2, 7 Schegloff,  2–4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 20, 21, 24, 32, 38, 40–44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 85, 90, 92, 96, 97–100, 102, 107, 116, 117, 119, 127, 133, 137–138, 142, 153, 155, 158, 160, 167, 170, 173 Scheutz,  2, 7–8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 25, 31–32, 34–37, 59, 60, 117, 120, 166, 168, 169–170, 175, 177, 180, 181 Schlieben-Lange,  161, 163 Schlobinski,  13, 37 Scholze-Stubenrecht,  119 Schönfeldt,  98, 175 Schönherr,  41, 175 Schröder, P.,  2, 59 Schröder, W.,  2 Schwartz,  111, 112 Schwitalla,  2, 8, 13, 17, 21, 37, 83, 116, 174–175 Selting,  3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21, 24, 25, 30–31, 37, 39–42, 47, 59, 67, 100, 130, 149, 154, 158, 168, 178–179, 181 Seo,  99, 112 Shovelton,  111 Sorjonen,  3, 98, 158 Stein,  37

T Taleghani-Nikazm,  76 Tanaka,  4, 7, 133 Thibault,  170 Thim-Mabrey,  59 Thompson,  2, 3, 4, 13, 32, 40, 42, 51, 178 Tischer,  2, 98, 175 U Uhmann,  3, 4, 8, 9, 17, 37, 75, 85, 90, 100, 119, 135, 172, 175 V Vlatten[Golato],  179–180 Vorreiter,  21 W Walker,  1, 7, 13, 21, 25, 31, 36, 37, 38, 40–43, 45, 169, 176, 177, 179, 181 Weber, E.,  158 Weber, T.,  3, 98, 117, 158, 175 Weenink,  178 Wells,  41 Wermke,  119 Weydt,  156 Whittington,  78 Willey,  98, 112, 123 Wooffitt,  3 Y Yoon,  7, 101, 153 Z Zifonun,  6, 149

Subject index

A Abrupt-joins,  38, 42–43 Acceptance,  37, 87, 102 Accounts,  139, 142, 144, 145, 153, 155, 159–60, 165, 167 Accusations,  57–58, 139, 141, 153, 159, 160, 164–165 Achievement see interactional achievement Acknowledgment minimal,  90 non-verbal,  91 token,  75, 76, 101, 172 Affective stance,  3, 163, 164 Affiliation,  3, 8, 96, 150, 160 see also disaffiliation see also challenges Agreement,  50, 92, 156 see also disagreement Alignment,  10, 59, 139, 149, 161, 166–7 see also misalignment Ambiguity, syntactic,  39, 47, 48, 176–77 Anacoluthon,  174–175 Apokoinu,  169 Apologies,  153 Articulatory details,  154, 177, 178–79 see also cut-off Assessment,  23, 49, 54, 58, 78, 80, 83–85, 104, 106, 109, 133, 163 Asymmetry see epistemic asymmetry Auxiliary see modal verb B Back-down,  75, 138, 151, 160, 167 Backward-looking,  7, 24, 69, 77, 82, 104–105 see also forward-looking see also progressivity of the turn

Break -off, syntactic,  114, 174–175 phrasal,  60 prosodic,  25, 59, 86, 108, 119, 163, 177 C CA see Conversation Analysis Challenges,  45, 73, 96, 141–42, 151, 159–160, 164, 167 see also dispreferred action Check see understanding check Co-constructed,  4, 11 Confirmation,  50, 58, 75, 95, 123, 160 Contamination, syntactic,  175–177 Context -free,  9, 67, 68 -sensitive,  9, 60, 67, 103, 124, 173–174, 177 sequential,  3, 51, 177 Constituents,  15, 22, 26, 36, 99, 112, 119 Contour see intonation contour/gestalt Conversation Analysis,  2, 3, 8, 170, 171 Cross-linguistic,  3, 21, 100, 110, 135, 168, 170, 179, 180, 181–182 see also typology Cut-off,  30–31, 41, 59, 66, 76, 81, 90, 99, 100, 104, 110, 166, 175 see also articulatory details D Deletion, sequential,  43, 70, 72, 77–78, 81–82, 91, 176 Delicate matters,  11, 71, 92, 96

Disagreement,  96, 150, 158, 160 see also agreement Dispreferred action,  155, 158, 159, 167, 176 see also challenges Disaffiliation,  151, 159–60, 166–7 see also affiliation Downplay,  90, 153 E Embodied action see acknowledgement, non-verbal see gesture see non-verbal resources see projection, visual Epistemic asymmetry,  49, 82, 94–95, 109, 116–118, 154, 163, 174 authority,  58, 123–124, 142–144 see also shared knowledge F Face, issues of,  90, 96, 100, 124, 143 Figurative expressions,  11 Flexible word order,  16, 100, 174 Focusing strategies,  7, 8, 25, 33, 47 Forward-looking,  7, 69, 77, 82, 99, 107, 127 see also backward-looking see also progressivity of the turn Fragments,  35 G Garden-path constructions,  176–177 Gesture,  1, 4, 15, 177, 179 see also non-verbal resources see also projection, visual

  Subject index H Hesitation,  48, 175 markers,  106, 108, 123, 167 I Idiosyncrasy,  174, 175 In-breath,  20, 119 Increment,  20–23, 40–41, 77, 158 -al view of syntax,  32, 174 Insertion,  10, 66, 77, 117 Institutional data,  87, 96, 159, 181 Interactional achievement,  39, 43, 86, 144, 170 practice,  2, 137 Intonation contour/gestalt,  30, 31, 178 final/non-final,  25, 50, 59, 77, 109, 123, 129–130, 154, 158, 171, 178–179 Invitations,  121, 155, 158–160 J Laughter,  47, 72, 83, 85, 164–165 Linearity,  35, 66, 82, 174 see also temporality M Marker misplacement,  6 response pursuit,  51, 59 turn-initial discourse,  65 of trouble,  99, 119, 176 Misalignment,  83, 140, 148, 15–51, 166–7, 179 see also alignment Meta-comment,  100, 127, 132, 135 Modal verb,  16, 30, 65, 116, 139, 144–45 particle,  33, 48, 59, 60, 107, 138, 142, 149, 153–54, 156, 161 see also modality, verb see also verb tense Modality verb,  34, 138–140, 144–45 sentence,  150, 159 N Non-verbal resources,  44, 61, 65–66, 100, 106 see also acknowledgement, non-verbal see also gesture see also projection, visual

P Parenthetical,  40, 78, 102, 116–117, 132, 133, 171, 175 Participant orientation,  8, 19, 60–61, 67, 72, 82, 95, 109, 133, 150, 154, 156, 160, 163, 167, 177 Participation status,  60, 66, 109, 107, 155, 179 speakership,  39, 42, 61, 67–68, 69, 72, 90, 171 recipiency,  39, 56, 61, 68, 83, 139, 150–155, 166–67 misaligned recipiency,  83 Pitch,  14, 25, 30, 42–43, 48, 142, 154, 158, 178 Pivots, non-syntactic morphological,  5 sound,  5 topical,  5–7 Progressivity of the turn,  59, 65, 71, 92, 102, 110, 112, 114, 117, 120, 127, 137 see also backward-looking see also forward-looking Projection action,  4 pragmatic,  29 prosodic,  41–2 reprojection,  51, 104, 177 syntactic,  4, 16, 20, 29, 40–41, 94, 100–101, 108, 130, 176–77, 181–182 types,  4, 174 visual,  4, 64–67 see also linearity see also temporality Prosody see abrupt-joins see articulatory details see cut-off see hesitation see intonation see pitch see rush-through see volume see suppressing prosodic signals

R Recipiency see participation status Reference formulation,  8, 10, 80, 103, 113, 116, 119, 131, 132–134, 135, 138, 172 Recipient-design,  3, 8, 24, 40, 80, 113, 125, 132–33, 135, 179 Recycling,  9, 45, 48, 50–51, 61, 76, 91, 104–105, 114, 119–120 scope of,  100, 119, 135 Replacement,  33, 21, 76, 116, 119, 137, 138, 153 Response pursuit see marker, response pursuit Retroactive,  103, 125, 132, 134 Reverse polarity question,  159–160 Rush-through,  38, 41, 43

Q Quoting, quotation markers,  33, 112, 179–180

U Understanding check,  97, 123, 149, 154, 160, 167

S Semantics,  5, 27, 33, 55–56, 172 Shared knowledge,  60, 94, 95, 107, 130, 149, 155, 156, 154 see also epistemic asymmetry see also epistemic authority Skip-connect,  10, 41 Speakership see participation status Stance see affective stance Story, story-telling,  9, 64–66, 69, 71, 83, 85–86, 96, 172, 179 Suppressing prosodic signals,  9, 31, 41, 43 Subjunctive,  150, 180 T Temporality,  5, 91, 174 see also linearity Transition space,  19, 20, 72, 137 Trouble source,  97, 107, 132, 137, 159, 166–167 Turn-holding/turn-keeping,  9, 40, 42, 154, 171 Typology, language,  3, 15, 24, 182 see also cross-linguistic

In the series Studies in Discourse and Grammar the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 21 Betz, Emma: Grammar and Interaction. Pivots in German conversation. 2008. xiii, 208 pp. 20 Sadler, Misumi: Grammar in Use across Time and Space. Deconstructing the Japanese ‘dative subject’ construction. 2007. xiv, 212 pp. 19 Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen: Request Sequences. The intersection of grammar, interaction and social context. 2006. x, 125 pp. 18 Ewing, Michael C.: Grammar and Inference in Conversation. Identifying clause structure in spoken Javanese. 2005. x, 276 pp. 17 Hakulinen, Auli and Margret Selting (eds.): Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction. 2005. viii, 408 pp. 16 Koshik, Irene: Beyond Rhetorical Questions. Assertive questions in everyday interaction. 2005. x, 183 pp. 15 Golato, Andrea: Compliments and Compliment Responses. Grammatical structure and sequential organization. 2005. xii, 249 pp. 14 Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby (eds.): Preferred Argument Structure. Grammar as architecture for function. 2003. x, 459 pp. 13 Englebretson, Robert: Searching for Structure. The problem of complementation in colloquial Indonesian conversation. 2003. x, 206 pp. 12 Hayashi, Makoto: Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. 2003. xii, 250 pp. 11 Scheibman, Joanne: Point of View and Grammar. Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. 2002. xiv, 188 pp. 10 Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.): Studies in Interactional Linguistics. 2001. viii, 438 pp. 9 Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa: Syntax in the Making. The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation. 2001. xiv, 176 pp. 8 Mori, Junko: Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese. Connective expressions and turn construction. 1999. xii, 240 pp. 7 Laury, Ritva: Demonstratives in Interaction. The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. 1997. viii, 294 pp. 6 Dorgeloh, Heidrun: Inversion in Modern English. Form and function. 1997. x, 236 pp. 5 Tao, Hongyin: Units in Mandarin Conversation. Prosody, discourse, and grammar. 1996. xvi, 226 pp. 4 Downing, Pamela A.: Numeral Classifier Systems: The Case of Japanese. 1996. xx, 336 pp. 3 Weber, Elizabeth G.: Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. 1993. x, 252 pp. 2 Iwasaki, Shoichi: Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse. Theoretical considerations and a case study of Japanese spoken discourse. 1992. xii, 152 pp. 1 Geluykens, Ronald: From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction. On Left-Dislocation in English. 1992. xii, 182 pp.