Different approaches to collaborative constructions

It is possible to look at and discuss collaborative constructions from several different viewpoints, and that is exactly what is found in previous research in the field.

The standpoint J. Lindström (2008) chooses in his book is to discuss what here is called completion and other-extension together under the heading ifyllnader (E. completions) (see e.g. examples (20) and (22) on pages 189 and 191). A similar approach is found in Eriksson (2001) and Landqvist (2004) who both discuss extensions (S. turtillägg), and solely focus on what could be called self-extension (Linell’s egen-tillägg) where the first speaker adds to his own previous

10 _{The first scholar to use terms equivalent to the English other-extension seems to be Linell, who used the} Swedish term annan-tillägg in his article on dialogical grammar as distinguished from egen-tillägg (2005b: 291). Even if I am not discussing self-extension in the present study, I choose to differentiate between these two phenomena by using the full term, other-extension.

words. This could point to a categorisation similar to the one J. Lindström (2008) uses, because neither of them mentions that there are two types of extensions, self-extension and other- extension. In their article (2007), Couper-Kuhlen and Ono only focus on self-extensions in three different languages, English, German and Japanese. That could be due to a similar categorisation as mentioned before, i.e. to look at completion and other-extension as closely related phenomena but self-extensions as a distant relative to the latter one, one that shares some formal

characteristics but is used for different interactional actions. Szczepek (2000a and 2000b), however discusses two types of collaborative actions, i.e. collaborative productions that complete the current speaker’s utterance, and the ones that extend it (2000b: 17).

In my account, I hold a similar view to the ones described above; I only address the two types J. Lindström (2008) and others pair together in their accounts, completions and other- extensions. The categorisation is based upon the view that these two types have a lot in common and are different from other forms of collaborative activities. Therefore, I exclude both self-extensions and designedly incomplete utterances (Koshik 2002), i.e. utterances which require what Bockgård (2004: 282) calls gap-fill-in-answers. They are interesting phenomena to investigate but they are of a different character and therefore not easily comparable to completions and other-extensions.

I look at these two constructions from both a formalistic viewpoint and an interactional one. My focus is on to which type of utterance the addition is linked; whether it is an incomplete sentence in the making or a potentially complete one. This is also an interactional viewpoint based on whether the first speaker has completed her ongoing turn and reached a possible TRP when the extension is added to, or if it is still under construction.

Figure 4.1 shows the view on which I base my observations:

Figure 4.1: Syntax- /Turn-oriented description used in the study Addition by the second speaker to the former

speaker’s unfinished contribution

Completion Other-extension

Two types of collaborative constructions

A parasitic addition by the second speaker to the former speaker‘s potentially completed contribution

In the remainder of the thesis, I look at these collaborative constructions as shown in Fig.4.1; i.e. completions as a separate phenomenon based on the fact that in them two speakers

collaboratively construct a single clause or a TCU, and other-extension as a phenomenon where the second speaker adds to a potentially complete syntactic and interactional structure.

Another way to present a collaborative construction is to show it on a timeline, as in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 where \\ marks a possible completion point where a speaker change would be supposed to occur. As revealed in Fig.4.2, A never completes her utterance and B comes in shortly before the anticipated TRP. As also illustrated in the figure, B does not claim the conversational floor but withdraws after his short insertion. A has then an opportunity to regain the floor if she so chooses (therefore the parenthesis); in some instances, a third party will join in or the conversation will take another and unexpected course:

1st _{move: A: _____________________} 2nd _{move: B: _____\\}

(3rd _{move: A): ______________________\\}

Time ---Time Figure 4.2: Completions and the temporal dimension

Other-extensions, on the other hand, are looked at as shown in Figure 4.3. Now, B’s contribution is added on to a potentially complete utterance – and that is the main formal difference:

1st _{move: A: __________________________________\\}

2nd _{move: B: __________________\\}

(3rd _{move: A): ________________\\} Time --- Time

Figure 4.3: Other-extensions and the temporal dimension

Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 show both the syntactic orientation and how the utterances unfold in a certain time slot. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show that the syntactic structures of the completed or extended utterances emerge during the given time. I have chosen syntax as the point of departure for obvious reasons. From the early days of CA, syntax has been considered the main factor in providing the projectable units in conversation (see Sacks et al. 1974: 702; Ford and Thompson 1996: 143). The linguistic units Sacks et al. mention in their paper on turn organisation only include syntactic elements, i.e. sentential, clausal, phrasal and lexical constructions. All these units allow a projection; i.e. the participants in the dialogue know, or

find out as the TCU unfolds, what is needed to complete the utterance (op.cit.: 701–703). It is significant that Sacks et al. do not mention other types of TCUs than the syntactic ones; hence giving more weight to syntax than to other features such as intonation and pragmatics which recent research has shown to play an important role in achieving smooth turn transfer (Ford and Thompson 1996: 171). Some researchers have followed in the footsteps of the pioneers in exploring completion by giving syntax more weight than e.g. pragmatic and prosodic features; see for example Bockgård (2004) and Helasvuo (2004). Others, especially Szczepek (2000a), have given syntax, prosody and pragmatics equal relevance in their writing.

Recent research has borne out the importance of syntax in interaction and by that established the view introduced by Sacks et al. (1974). The research by Ford and Thompson (1996: 142), introduced in 3.3.3 above, shows interesting factors about the interdependence of syntax, pragmatics and prosody. The central questions explored by Ford and Thompson are, first, to what extent syntactic completion can be a predictor of a turn completion that results in a speaker change, and, second, what it means in the interaction when syntactic, pragmatic and prosodic completion are not associated with a speaker change. Their findings confirm that intonational and pragmatic completions are nearly always syntactic ones as well, whereas the reverse is not true. The vast majority (98.8%) of intonational completions are also syntactic (Ford and Thompson 1996: 154–155). Intonational and pragmatic completion points select from among the syntactic completion points to form a Complex Transition Relevance Place (CTRP) (Ford and Thompson 1996: 154), which seems to be an ideal place for a speaker change. If Ford and Thompson’s conclusion predicts something for other languages than English, it is reasonable to assume that pragmatic and prosodic completion points would coincide with the syntactic ones in most cases in Icelandic also. To support Ford and Thompson’s findings, Szczepek (2000a: 18) claims that 75% of her data show completions with respect to both prosody and syntax and those are the most typical of her data corpus.