Cover not available

In:Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 127–150

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
Emergent patterns of predicative clauses in spoken Hebrew discourse

The ha'emet (hi) she- ‘the truth (is) that’ construction

 | University of Haifa
Published online: 17 February 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.05pol
Abstract
This study focuses on the Hebrew construction ha'emet (hi) she- ‘the truth (is) that’ in a corpus of informal audio and video conversation. Taking an interactional linguistics approach, I argue that the construction serves as a metalingual fragment constituting a projecting construction. Its employment is fixed and formulaic, it occurs at a moment of shift in the discourse and is used to project talk which does three kinds of social work: displaying the speaker’s stance; setting the record straight regarding the speaker’s personal world; and revealing delicate information. Each function emerges in a context-sensitive manner, revealing the relationship between the construction and its sequential position. Employment of the construction illustrates the ways grammar evolves from the interactions among conversational participants.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Structural analysis – The ha'emet (hi) she- construction as a discourse marker
    • 3.2Functional analysis
      • 3.2.1Expressing the speaker’s opinion, stance or evaluation
      • 3.2.2Setting the record straight regarding the speaker’s personal world
      • 3.2.3Revealing personal, sensitive or delicate information
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (35)
References
Aijmer, K. (2007). The interface between discourse and grammar: the fact is that. In A. Celle, & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as Discourse Markers (pp. 31–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1), 7–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blau, Y. (1967). yesodot hataxbir [The Foundations of Syntax] (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: The Hebrew Institution for literal Education in Israel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987 [1978]). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(forthcoming). Representing discourse. Linguistics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara (Fall 2012 version). [URL]
Du Bois, J. W., Cumming, S., Schuetze-Coburn S., and Danae P. (1992). Discourse Transcription: Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, D. & Fasulo, A. (2006). “To Be Honest”: Sequential Uses of Honesty Phrases in Talk-in-Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39(4), 343–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (2001a). Denial and the construction of conversational turns. In J. Bybee, & M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse (pp. 61–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001b). At the intersection of turn and sequence: negation and what comes next. In M. Selting, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 51–79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2008). ‘Die Sache ist …’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27(1), 39–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). N be that-constructions in everyday German conversation. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Crosslinguistic Perspective (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (2004). The openness of grammatical constructions. Papers from the 40th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 40, 153–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions (pp. 99–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hsieh, C. Y. C. (2018). From turn-taking to stance-taking: Wenti-shi ‘(the) thing is’ as a projector construction and an epistemic marker in Mandarin conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 127, 107–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. & Ziv Y. (1998). Discourse markers: Introduction. In A. H. Jucker, & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, J., Maschler, Y. and Pekarek Doehler, S. (2016). A cross-linguistic perspective on grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 72–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). rotse lishmoa keta? ‘wanna hear something weird/funny [lit. ‘a segment’]?’: The discourse markers segmenting Israeli Hebrew talk-in-interaction. In A. H. Jucker, & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (pp. 13–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). The role of discourse markers in the construction of multivocality in Israeli Hebrew talk in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 35(1), 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael, Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla, Fishman, Stav, Miller Shapiro, Carmit, Goretsky, Netanel, Aghion, Gallith, Fofliger, Ophir, Wildner, Nikolaus, & Ben Moshe, Yotam Michael. (2019). The Haifa Multimodal Corpus of Spoken Hebrew.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nahir, S. (1987). 'ikarey torat hamishpat [ The Essence of the Theory of the Sentence ] (in Hebrew). Haifa: The Re'ali school publication.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (pp. 103–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Grammar, projection and turn-organization il y a NP ‘there is NP’ as project construction in French talk-in-interaction. In A. Deppermann, & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction (pp. 173–200). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26, 99–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2), 91–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2001). ‘Presupposition can be a bluff’: How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers. Journal of Pragmatics 33(10), 1529–1552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: When nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language in Social Interaction 41, 29–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Günthner, Susanne
2024. Calibrating sensitive actions in palliative care consultations. In New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 36], ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Floyd, Simeon
2021. Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50:1 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue