Article published In: Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2022) ► pp.165–189
Can temporal clauses be insubordinate?
Evidence from English conversation
Published online: 28 March 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22006.cou
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22006.cou
Abstract
In this paper we aim to determine whether temporal clauses can be shown to be insubordinate in everyday American English interaction. In order to investigate grammatical insubordination in conversation, we operationalize the notion of ‘insubordination’ as a specific practice for designing a turn-at-talk and implementing a social action. That is, we treat as ‘insubordinate’ a clause with a grammatically subordinate form that (a) is freestanding, that is, forms a prosodic unit of its own, (b) implements a discrete social action in its sequential context, and (c) has an independent interpretation, that is, is interpretable and actionable in the absence of a main clause. We then examine five different types of freestanding temporal clauses in conversation which might be considered candidate insubordinate uses. Our data show that in some cases both criteria (b) and (c) are lacking, while in others it is criterion (c) that is absent. In none of these cases are all three criteria satisfied at once. We conclude that temporal clauses do not exhibit insubordination in English conversation as do other adverbial clauses such as those with ’if’.
Article outline
- 1.Background
- 2.Adverbial clauses used insubordinately in talk-in-interaction: The case of if
- 3.Data and procedure
- 4.Candidate insubordinate temporal clauses in conversation
- 4.1Freestanding temporal clauses
- 4.2Freestanding temporal clauses as post-completion increments
- 4.3Freestanding temporal clauses in turn continuation by other
- 4.4Freestanding temporal clauses in other repair-initiation
- 4.5Freestanding temporal clauses as responsive actions
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (39)
Auer, P. (2014). Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests: Notes on analepsis from the perspective of on-line syntax. Pragmatics, 24(3), 533–560.
(2015). The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction (pp. 27–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benzitoun, C. (2006). Examen de la notion de subordination. Le cas des quand insubordonnés. Faits de langues, 281, 35–47.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1988). On the temporal interpretation of postposed when-clauses in narrative discourse. In R. Matthews & J. Schmole-Rostosky (Eds.), Papers on Language and Medieval Studies (pp. 353–372). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
(1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse: The case of because. Pragmatics, 6(3), 389–426.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Selting, Margret et al: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 121, 1–51.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ono, T. (2007). ‘Incrementing‘ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513–552.
Dwyer, A. M. (2016). Ordinary insubordination as transient discourse. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 183–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, N. & Watanabe, H. (2016). The dynamics of insubordination. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 1–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133–156.
Günthner, S. (2020). Practices of clause-combining: From complex wenn-constructions to insubordinate (‘stand-alone’) conditionals in everyday spoken German. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation. Clausal patterns and the organization of action (pp. 185–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hamann, C. (1989). English temporal clauses in a reference frame model. In A. Schopf (Ed.), Essays on Tensing in English (pp. 31–154). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Hilpert, M. (2015). Kollaborative Insubordination in gesprochenem Englisch: Konstruktion oder Umgang mit Konstruktionen? In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen (pp. 25–40). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Kaltenböck, G. (2019). Delimiting the class: A typology of English insubordination. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. S. Sansinena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 167–198). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Koivisto, A., R. Laury, & E-L. Seppanen. (2011). Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish etta-clauses. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 69–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Laury, R. (2012). Syntactically non-integrated Finnish ‘jos’ (if)-conditional clauses as directives. Discourse Processes, 491, 213–242.
Lerner, G. H. (1996). 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.
(2004). 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(2), 151–184.
Lindström, J., Laury, R. & Lindholm, C. (2019). Insubordination and the contextually sensitive emergence of if-requests in Swedish and Finnish institutional talk-in-interaction. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. Sol Sansiñena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 55–78). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lindström, J., Lindholm, C. & Laury, R. (2016). The interactional emergence of conditional clauses as directives: constructions, trajectories and sequences of action. Language Sciences, 581, 8–21.
Local, J. & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies, 91, 185–204.
Maschler, Y. (2020). The insubordinate-subordinate continuum. Prosody, embodied action, and the emergence of Hebrew complex syntax. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation. Clausal patterns and the organization of action (pp. 87–125). Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Ono, T., Thompson, S. A. & Sasaki, Y. (2012). Japanese negotiation through emerging final particles in everyday talk. Discourse Processes, 49(3–4), 243–272.
Raymond, C. W. & White, A. E. C. (2017). Time reference in the service of social action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80(2), 109–131.
(2022). On the recognitionality of references to time in social interaction. Language & Communication, 831, 1–15.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 231, 499–545.
(2001). Conversation Analysis: A Project in Process – “Increments”. Forum Lecture, Linguistic Society of America Linguistics Institute, University of California Santa Barbara.
(2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2016). Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 239–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seppänen, E.-L. & Laury, R. (2007). Complement clauses as turn continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-clause. Pragmatics, 17(4), 553–572.
Schwenter, S. (2016). Meaning and interaction in Spanish independent si-clauses. Language Sciences, 581, 22–34.
Sorjonen, M.-L., Peräkylä, A., Laury, R. & Lindström, J. (2021). Intersubjectivity in action: An introduction. In J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä, M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stivers, T. & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 391, 1–25.
Thompson, S. A., Longacre, R. & Hwang, S. (2007). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume II: Complex constructions, Second edition (pp. 237–300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, S. A. & Suzuki, R. (2011). The grammaticalization of final particles. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 668–682). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walker, G. (2004). On some interactional and phonetic properties of increments to turns in talk-in-interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation (pp. 147–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Doehler, Simona Pekarek & Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
2025. An interactional grammar of insubordination. In Grammar in Action [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 37], ► pp. 332 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.