Vol. 3 Núm. 2 (2016): Approaching Diversity in Speech Studies: New Methodologies under Empirical Perspectives
Spoken Syntax

Cognitive and interactional motivations for prosodic phrasing: A corpus-based analysis of the clause in spoken Israeli Hebrew

Leon Shor
Tel-Aviv University
Publicado septiembre 21, 2016

Palabras clave:

Prosodic Phrasing, Cognitive Motivations, Interactional Motivations, Speech Management Phenomena
Cómo citar
Shor, L. (2016). Cognitive and interactional motivations for prosodic phrasing: A corpus-based analysis of the clause in spoken Israeli Hebrew. CHIMERA: Revista De Corpus De Lenguas Romances Y Estudios Lingüísticos, 3(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.15366/chimera2016.3.2.013


Focusing mainly on elicited narrative discourse, past research has tended to explain prosodic phrasing in terms of underlying cognitive motivations, such as memory constraints and processing limitations. However, when one examines instances of prosodic phrasing in conversational discourse, additional types of motivations emerge, namely interactional ones, reflecting speaker’s awareness of the sensitivity of the situation, of the recipient’s emotional and cognitive state, and of the discourse structure of the conversation. In this paper, instances of clauses realized over several prosodic units will be presented, and underlying motivations of such phrasing will be discussed. The suggested conclusion will be that each instance of prosodic phrasing might exhibit, to a varying degree, both cognitive and interactional motivations, stressing the importance of taking into consideration the communicative context within which the analyzed syntactic structure is embedded.


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.


Anward, J. 2010. Making Units. Comments on Beatrice Szczepek Reed “Intonation phrases in natural conversation: A participants’ category?”. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber & M. Selting (eds), Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 213-216.

Barth-Weingarten, D. 2007. Intonation units and actions – evidence from everyday interaction. Paper presented at IPrA, Göteborg, 8–13 July, 2007.

Berrendonner, A. 2011/2. Unités syntaxiques & unités prosodiques. Langue française 170: 81-93.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech ,G., Conrad, S. & Finnegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

Bolden, G. B. 2009. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5): 974-998.

Chafe, W. 1980. Some Reasons for Hesitating. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (eds), Temporal Variables in Speech.¬ The Hague: Mouton, 169-180.

Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Clark H. H. 2002. Speaking in time. Speech Communication 36: 5-13.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. 1996. Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds), Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge, 11-56.

Cresti, E. 2014. Syntactic properties of spontaneous speech in the Language into Act Theory. In T. Raso, & H. Mello (eds), Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 365-410.

Croft, W. 1995. Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 33: 839-882.

Croft, W. 2007. Intonation units and grammatical structure in Wardaman in crosslinguistic perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics 27: 1-39.

Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation (2nd edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40: 141-201.

Degand, L. & Simon, A.-C. 2009. Mapping prosody and syntax as a strategic choice. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehé & A. Wichmann (eds), Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics. Bangalore: Emerald, 79-105.

Du Bois J. W., Cumming, S., Schuetze-Coburn, S. & Paolino D. 1992. Discourse Transcrip-tion, Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, 4, Santa Barbara, CA, Department of Linguis-tics, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Ewing, M. C. 2005. Grammar and inference in conversation: identifying clause structure in spoken Javanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ford, C.E. & Thompson, S. A. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (eds), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 135-184.

Fox, B. 2008. Dynamics of discourse. In G. Antos & K. Knapp (eds), Handbook of Applied Linguistics II. Mouton de Gruyter, 255-284.

Gonen, E., Livnat, Z., Amir, N. 2015. The discourse marker axshav (‘now’) in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Discursive and prosodic features. Journal of Pragmatics 89: 69-84.

Goodwin, C. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, 97-121.

Grosman, I. 2014. Dynamics of disfluencies within Basic Discourse Units. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 31: 45-50.

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. 2001. Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversational discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Izre’el, S. 2005. Intonation Units and the Structure of Spontaneous Spoken Language: A View from Hebrew. In C. Auran, R. Bertrand, C. Chanet, A. Colas, A. Di Cristo, C. Portes, A. Reynier and M. Vion (eds.), Proceedings of the IDP05 International Symposium on Discourse-Prosody Interfaces.

Izre’el, S. 2012. Basic Sentence Structures: A View from Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In S. Caddéo, S. Roubaud, M. Rouquier & F. Sabio (eds), Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste. (Langues et langage, 20). Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence, 215-227.

Izre’el, S. Forthcoming a. Unipartite Clauses: A View from Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In A. Mengozzi & M. Tosco (eds), Afroasiatic: Data and Perspectives. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.


Izre’el, S. Forthcoming b. Basic Units of Language: Prosody, Discourse and syntax. In E. Gonen (ed.), Researching Spoken Hebrew (In Hebrew; English version in preparation)


Izre’el, S. Forthcoming c. In Search of the Units or Reference in Spontaneous Spoken Language: A View from Hebrew. Lecture at the IX LABLITA and IV LEEL International Workshop. Belo Horizonte (Brazil). UFMG (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais). August, 3-7, 2015.


Izre’el, S. & Mettouchi, A. 2015. Representation of Speech in CorpAfroAs: Transcriptional Strategies and Prosodic Units. In A. Mettouchi, M. Vanhove and D. Caubet (eds.), Corpus-based Studies of Lesser-described Languages: The CorpAfroAs corpus of spoken AfroAsiatic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13-41.

Iwasaki, S. 1996. The syntactic and functional structures of intonation unit in Thai. In The Fourth International Symposium on Language and Linguistics, Thailand, Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University, 750-761.

Iwasaki, S. 2009. Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes 46(2): 226–246.

Iwasaki, S. & Tao, H. 1993. A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Los Angeles, CA, January 9, 1993.

Keevalik, L. 2010. The interactional profile of a placeholder: the Estonian demonstrative see. In N. Amiridze, B. H. Davis & M. Maclagan (eds), Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 139-172.

Kibrik, A. A. & Podlesskaya, V. I. 2009. Rasskazy o snovidenijax: korpussnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa [Russian: Night Dream Stories: a corpus study of spoken Russian discourse], Moscow: Languages of Slavonic Cultures.

Kibrik, A. A. & Podlesskaya, V. I. 2006. Problema segmentacii ustnogo diskursa i kognitivnaja sistema govorjashchego [Segmentation of spoken discourse and the speaker’s cognitive system]. In V.D. Solovyev (ed.), Kognitivnye issledovanija, vol. 1. Moscow: Institut psixologii RAN, 138-158.


Lenk, U. 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.

Linell, P. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins, and Transformations. London: Routledge.

Maschler, Y. 2009. Metalanguage in Interaction: Israeli-Hebrew Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Matsumoto, K. 2003. Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation: Syntactic, informational and functional structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Matthews, P. H. 2007. Syntactic Relations: A Critical Survey, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moneglia, M. & Cresti, E. 2006. C-ORAL-ROM – Prosodic Boundaries for Spontaneous Speech Analysis. In Y. Kawaguchi, Z. Susumu & T. Toshihiro (eds), Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics, 89-113.

Moneglia, M. & Raso, T. 2014. Appendix: Notes on the Language into Act Theory. In T. Raso & H. Mello (eds), Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies [SLC 61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 468-495.

Müller, F. 1996. Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. In E. Couper-Kuhlen (ed.), Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: CUP, 131-176.

Norrick, N. R. 2000. Conversational Narrative, Storytelling in Everyday Talk. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ono, T. & Thompson, S.A. 1995. What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P. Davis (ed.), Descriptive and Theoretical Modes in the Alternative Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 213-271.

Park, J.S-Y. 2002. Cognitive and interactional motivations for the intonation unit. Studies in Language 26(3): 637-680.

Rao, R. 2011. Intonation in Spanish Classroom-style Didactic Speech. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2(3): 493-507.

Rühlemann, C. 2006. Coming to terms with conversational grammar: ‘Dislocation’ and ‘dysfluency’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4): 385-409.

Rühlemann, C., Bagoutdinov, A. & O’Donnell, M. B. 2011. Windows on the mind: Pauses in conversational narrative. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 198-230.

Schourup, L. 2011. The discourse marker now: A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 43(8): 2110-2129.

Selting, M. 2010. Prosody in interaction. State of the art. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber & M. Selting (eds), Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3-40.

Svennevig, J. 1999. Getting acquainted in conversation: A study of initial interactions. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Swerts, M. 1998. Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4): 485-496.

Swerts, M. & Geluykens, R. 1994. Prosody as a marker of information flow in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 37(1): 21-43.

Takahara, P. O. 1998. Pragmatic functions of the English discourse marker anyway and its corresponding contrastive Japanese discourse markers. In A.H. Jucker, Y. Ziv (eds), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 327-351.

Tao, H. 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Thompson, S. A. and Hopper, P. J. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: evidence from conversation. In J. L. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 27-60.

Van Valin, R. D. & LaPolla, R. J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wouk, F. 2008. The syntax of intonation units in Sasak. Studies in Language 32(1): 137-162.

Yatziv, I.-I. & Livnat, Z. 2006. Coherence in spoken discourse: Exploration of the functions of the discourse marker az. In R. Ben Shahar & G. Toury (eds), Hebrew: A Living Language ["Ha-ivrit Safa Haya"] IV. Hakibutz Hameukhad and The Porter Institue for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University, 175-189. (in Hebrew).