240 241

FOREGROUNDING REFERENTS: A RECONSIDERATION OF LEFT DISLOCATION IN DISCOURSE Secondly, left-dislocation is a formal operation that transforms one sentence into another. However, many Elinor Ochs Keenan of the constructions in our data look more like dis­ Un i versity of Southern California courses than sentences. That this has not been previously Bambi Schieff elin appreciated is due to the failure to examine these con­ Columbia Un iversity str uctions in their context of use . In the discussion to follow we consider the communi­ I. GOALS AND ORIENTATION cative work being performed in utterances o f the form: In this paper we discuss a set of verbal construc­ Referent + Proposition. This involves first familiarizing t ions found in spontaneous conversational discourse . the reader with the discourse contexts in which such These constructions have in common the following format: utterances are employed . In particular, we turn our Refe'.ent +,Pi;-o~ osition . _That is, some referent is attention to the role of the initial referent in the specified initially and is then followed by a proposition discourse. What is the relation of the initial referent relevant in some way to this referent. to the discourse history, for example? What is the relation of the initial referent to subsequent discourse? (1) GTS4 -l We argue that the status of the initial referent as definite (K has been talking about fact that his car /new or given/new (Chafe 1975) needs further clarification. radio was taken from his car) Specifically it will be argued that a critical factor is REF the need of the speaker to provide appropriate old infor­ K: They cleaned me out. And my father oh he ' s mation, i . e. old information relevant to the main point PR OP expressed about the referent. //he's fit to be tied . After assessing the function of these constructions R: Tell Daddy to buy you some more. in the discourse a t hand, we present alternative strategies for carrying out the same communicative work . These Fo r example, in (1), "And my father oh he's- I/he's fit strategies involve a sequence of two or more utterances. to be tied." represents such a construction . Here the In the first utterance, a referent is introduced into the referent expressed by "my father" is semantically related discourse . In the subsequent utterance(s), propositions to the subsequent proposition "he's- I/he's fit to be tied . " relevant to that referent are expressed. We argue that ~onstructions of this type have been previously Referent+Proposition constructions share many of the described as left-dislocations (Chafe 1975, Gruber 1967, properties of these sequences. Gundel 1975 , Ross 1967 for example). Left- dislocation represents a transformation that moves an NP within the II . DATA BASE sentenc~. The term left- dislocation is not entirely Our analysis is based primarily on transcriptions approp~iate ~o the constructions considered in the present made by G. Jefferson of five group therapy sessions ~n~l~sis. First, although the proposition following the (GTS) in which severa l adolescents took part (approxi­ ~nitial ~eferent usually contains a coreferential pronoun, ma tely 500 pages). Material on children's use of the it sometimes does not . Example (2) illustrates such a cons tructions und er study is drawn from transcriptions case: of the convers ations of twins recorded over the period of a year. (33 mos. - 45 mos . ) ( Keenan 19"/4) . (2) Two Girls; 8 (in discussion about reading required for courses) III . ROLE OF REFERENT+ PROPOSITION IN THE DISCOURSE REF HISTORY B: ohh I g'ta tell ya one course, ((pause)) A. BRING I NG REFERENTS INTO DISCOURSE: A: (incred- ) What is the speaker doing when he produces utterances REF of the form "Referent+Proposition", as expressed in B: The mo - the modern art the twentieth century example (l)? As a first step in answering this question, PROP we construct a series of hypothetical discourses . Imagine art, there's about eight books . the following dialogues: 242 243

Interlocutor A Interlocutor B (2) GTS4:15 As for REF PROP * (A) What happened to Tom? Concerning Tom, he left. K: Uh Pat McGee. I don't know if you know him, he ? (B) What happened to Tom? Tom, he left. -he lives in//Palisades. (C) What happened to Tom? His car, it broke down, J : I know him real well as a matter of fa(hh) and he ' s depressed. (he's) one of my best friends K: He - he used to go to the school I did// an' he­ Each of these dialogues varies in its degree of accepta­ J : No , no ( hh) bility . Dialogue (A) appears the most awkward, and in K: He was in the dorm with me, and I was over him- fact, we did not find any instances in the data in which and he- he had a room/ An' he­ as for X, concerning X, appeared following an immediately J: No! ( hh)//hehheh prior mention of X. (B) as well is odd . The most K: - he despised· me. natural way to utter such a sequence is to utter the \ . (3) GTS 1:97 second "Tom" with a question intonation, indicating that REF perhaps he had not heard the speaker, e.g . "Tom? He left". L : yeh, that c'd b e, cawss my sister, 'hh she We can imagine, however, that such a discourse is possible PROP if a long pause separates the two utterances and/or if en her boy friend jus broke up becawss he ast the addressee(B) repeats "Tom" in the course of searching me tu me tuh go out with um: for an adequate response. (4) GTS3:62 Discourse (C) is by far the most natural of the (Adolescents discussing how parents treat them) three presented here. And in fact, constructions of the K: Yeah// Yea h ! No matter how old// you are form "Referent + Proposition" appear most often in L: Yeah . Mh hm precisely this sort of discourse environment, namely, REF an environment in which the referent ·does not appear L: Parents don ' t understand. But all grownups in the immediately prior discourse . Chafe (1974) dis­ PROP cusses the fact that may or may not be presently in the w-they do it to kids. Whether they 're your consciousness of the hearer. If a referent i s in the own or not. consciousness of the hearer, the referent is said to be "foregrounded". In English foregrounded information 2.) On the other hand, some referent may have been may be syntactically marked by the speaker by use of in the foreground of the interlocutor's mind at some the definite article, anaphoric pronoun, relative clause prior point in the conversation but feel to the back­ and the like. We would like to claim here that in pro­ ground subsequently . In these instances, the speaker ducing constructions of the form "Referent + Proposition" may use the "Referent+Proposition" construction to speakers are performing work of precisely the o~posite REINTRODUCE a referent into the discourse. · It should sort: Rather than presenting information that is already be emphasized here that a referent may fall into the in the foreground of the listener ' s consciousness , the background rapidly after its first mention. It some­ s eaker brin s a referent into the fore round of the times happens that a referent must be reforegrounded listeners consciousness ee also Sanko & Brown 1975). after one turn or even after one utterance within a turn . With respect to the interactional history of the inter­ Example (5) illustrates a re-introduced referent: locutors, the referent is usuall not currentl a "center of attention i.e. not usually the current topic in (5) GTS3:37 the sense described by Li and Thompson 1976) . In pro­ K: An ' I got a red sweater, an' a white one, an' ducing constructions of this sort , the speaker makes the a blue one, an' a yellow one , an' a couple referent a "center of attention" (See also Payne 1974) . o ther sweaters, you know , And uh my sister Typically , the initial referent is some entity loves borrowing my sweaters because they're known to or knowable by the hearer from the non- verbal pullovers, you know, an' she c'n wear a blouse context of the utterance from some prior background under 'em an' she thinks "Well this i s great" experience . In other words, it is some entity that the (pause) hearer can identify or recognize . The referent may or REF PROP may not have been discussed at some point in the current K: An ' so my red sweater, I haven't seen it since discourse participated in by the interlocutors: 1 . ) In many cases, the speaker uses the "Referent+ Pr oposition" construction to INTRODUCE discourse-new I got it . referents. Examples (2) (3) & (4) exhibit this work: 244 245

B. FUNCTIONS OF FOREGROUNDING: Once the global funct i on of these constructions, It isn ' t a l way s the case that the introduction of novel i . e. to bring into the foreground or focus on some referent s as particular c a ses involves speaker change . referent (c.f . Sankoff & Brown 1975), is understood ; I n many cases, a speak er ma y bring up a certain point more par ticular functions of this phenomenon ma ke sen se. and use the "Refer ent + Proposi t i on" construction to l)ALTERNATIVES: In many cases , the spea ker uses t h is illustrate his/ her own po int . For exa mple in (7) below, construction to bring in a different referent f r om one there has been s ome discussion a bout how parents never previously specified with respect to some parti cular t reat t heir c hildren as ma ture individuals (see also predication. The speaker in these cases suggests a example ( 4 )) and L . br i ngs up the point that her parents ALTERNATIVE to that produced in a prior utter ance or turn . a re exceptio ns t o this generalization. By way of illus­ Exdmple (4) illustrates this usage. We avoi d t h e t er m ' I I t ration , L. describ es an incident in which her mother "contrast" to describe this function , as "contrast" pla y s a major r ole: usually implies that the referent brought in in "con trast" is a n alternative considered ( with va rying degrees o f ( 7 ) GTS3 : 63 cer titude) by both hearer a nd speaker (Chafe 197 5, L : Well my paren ts are different . I - it isn't my Kuno 1972). The way in which many of thes e "Referent + parents that do it to me , cause my my Proposi tion " constructions is used is much br oader than REF, REF, - PROP, this treatment o f contrast. In the data at hand, the mo ther , like my little sister , she had a party. spea k er may br ing in a refer ent tha t the hearer has no t PROP, yet en tertained a s a viable alter native . For example, So s he sa}s t o the g i rls, " Just don ' t get preg nant" in (4) the referent "al l grownups " is not a set that ( pause was under consideration by those listening t o L. D: heh heh heh 2) PARTICULAR CASES : The "Referent + Proposition" construction is used to draw the listener 's a t ten t ion No t ice here that we have a case of a complex " Referent + to a particular case of some general phenome non und er Pro po sition " constr uctio n in wh i ch one Referent + Proposition d iscussion or to some parti cular member o f a prev i o usly is embe dded in ano ther. The " Referent + Pr oposition" specified set. For example , in (5) the s peaker i s c o ns tructio n "lik e my little sister , she had a par ty" is isolating "my red sweater" from a previousl y me n tione d embe dded i n the Referent + Proposition constr ucti on "my list of items . Perhaps the most common use o f this mo t h er, .... s o she say s to the g i rls, ' Just don ' t get construction is to introduce refer ents that f urt her pregnant ' "· illustrate the current topi c of d i scussi o n . ( No te 3 ) SPE CIAL EMPHASIS: In some cases , the " Referent + that the r efer ents in themselves do not c o nstit ute Propo sitio n" c on s truc tion may be used neither to intro­ topi cs of discussion ( d i scour se topi cs ) but rather are duc e no r re- introduc e a ref e r ent but to mention again importa nt arguments in a proposition or set o f pro ­ a refe r e n t currently in t h e foreground of the interlocutors ' positions (discourse topic) under consi d er ation i n mi nds , We argue that this use is secondary rather than discour se . (c.f . Keenan a n d Schi effelin 1976 )) For basic to such constructions . In these cases, the speaker example , the d i scourse in (2) is preceded by a d iscussion i s u sing the basic function of focussing the listener ' s about people who do not like one another . Th e i ntro ­ attention o n s ome referent to amplify the attentio n duction of " Pat McGee" i n i tiates a case h is t or y releva nt p aid t o s ome referent und er disc uss i on . I n other words, to the current topic or concern of the i nt e rlocutors . t he s ~ ea k er uses the basic focus function to g i ve Simila rly, in (6) below, the interlocutor s have b een SPECIAL EMPHASIS or importance to a particular entity. talki ng about students falling asleep i n class and K Example ( 8 ) i l lustr ates this use. can ' t resist beinging in a relevant anecdote: ( 8) GTSl - 4 3 (6) GTS5 : 35 (discu ssing younger siblings) REF PRO P L: T ' know s ome of ' em a r e da rmn tall and K: Uh : : ..this guy , you could y e ll "Hey J o : hn , hey goodl ook ing they coul d p a ss for (t) ­ Joh- " ' n you c ' d go over an ' tap him on the shou lder nineteen. // A twelve yea r old guy comes R: [So he ' s gotta//good i magi nati on over I say who ' s y - older brother is he? PROP He ' s not he ' s in the A7 . K: .That ' s the only wa y you c ' d snap h i m out o f it. R: Bu t they don ' t - R: But they don ' t have a brain to go with it hehhh

· ) 246 247

REF PROP We need to examine the discourse of languages such L: These kids I don't believe it they're as Chinese, Japanese, Ko rean, Lahu and so on to assess six foot. the extent to which the informational status of the topicalized referent(s) is the same. In this way we This use of "Referent + Proposition" appears infre­ can assure that constructions that appear similar on quently (6.6% of adult corpus , f=3) in the data formal grounds are similar functionally as well. under consideration . IV. FOREGROUNDING, DEFINITENESS, AND SUBSEQUENT DISCOURSE C. FOREGROUNDING AND THE TOPICALIZATION HIERARCHY Thus far, we have discussed the initial Refe ~e nt in If our suggestion is correct, that is, if the primary Referent + Proposition constructi~ns ~n terms .of i ts function of Referent + Proposition constructions is to status as piece of GIVEN information in the discourse bring into the discourse a referent that the speaker (Chafe 1976) and as a sentence topic. We turn now to believes is not currently in the foreground of the listener's a discussion of its status as DEFIN ITE. We use the consciousness, then one would expect that frequently terms GIVEN and DEFINITE in the sense expressed by mentioned or discussed referents would appear infrequently Chafe (1976). "GIVEN refers to referents that the in these constructions. That is, referents that are high speaker assumes to be in the consciousness of the on the sentence topic hierarchy (Li and Thompson 1976) addressee at the time of the utterance." (Chafe 1976:7) should be low on the foregrounding referent hierarchy. DEFINITE refers to referents that the speaker believes To a large extent, this is, in fact, precisely what occurs . the hearer knows you can identify. The hearer may kn9w In this speech community co-conversationalists the referent through the discourse history or through usually talk about themselves (Sacks 1968, Hawkinson and the non- verbal context or through prior shared experience Hyman 1974). Overwhelmingly , conversations orient them­ with the speaker, general knowledge of the wo~l~ and so selves to the speaker and/or the hearer. In terms of the o n. A piece of information, then, may be definite but sentence t opic hierarchy, then, referents for "I" and not necessarily given . For example a referent may be "you" appear at the top. In the Referent + Proposition mentioned in discourse f or the first time but may be constructions collected, we found a number of cases of identifiabl e by the hearer from other sources . indirect reference to speaker or hearer, reference to We find that the initial referent in Referent + others through the speaker or hearer, but direct refer ­ Proposition constructions normally is not giv~n info~ma­ ence to the speaker or hearer a ppeared only once (2% tion, but it is normally definite. However,.in.loo~ing of adult data). Our data suggest that these referents over these constructions, we find that the distinctions are less likely to be foregrounded or "topicalized" between given/definite/new are still not sufficient for through s uch constructions. We can explain their in­ understanding the status of the initial referent and the frequent appearance as due to their near constant form of the Referent + Proposition construction. We presence in the discourse history. find that from the speaker's point of view , what is SENTENCE TOPIC REF + PROP CONS TRUCTIONS important is that the hearer know cert~in background information that is critical to assessing the subsequent SPEAKER/HEARER INDI VIDUALS OTHER proposition. Tha t is, the hearer must not only recognize THAN SPEAKER/HEARER \ HIGH LIKELIHOOD or k now who the speaker is talking about. The hearer must know certain facts about the referent, facts that are relevant to the main predication the speaker wants . I We find that many of the constructions in the data INDI v'rnuALS OTHER SPEAKER/HEARE R !Low LIKELIHOOD perform juit this ~a s k. We find tha~ i~ many cases an THAN SPEAKER/HEARER initial referent will be expressed; it is then followed by one or. more propo s itions that provide more information a bout t h e refer e nt; a nd this in turn is followed by a This observation should be taken into account in compar­ major predi cati on r elevant to the referent . E~amples ing topic constructions across languages. Constructions (9 ) (10) a nd ( 11) illustrate such a construction: o f the Referent + Proposition format have been treated Ref~rent + Background Proposition + Main Proposition . as comparable to topic constructions in other languages (Li & Thompson 19 76) . For example, they often appea r as glosses for t opic constructions in other languages . It is not clear at this point however, just how such constructions operate in the discourse of different languages. We need to examine the discourse of languages 248 249

(9) GTS3:7 0 (In d iscussio n a bout attitud es t owards young siblings) developing further the r ole o f Referent + Pr oposition REF BACKGROU ND PROPS constr uctions, we turn tc this latter al t ernative, L : My sister when we were up in camp when she was d iscourse, as a means of getting a refere nt k nown t o an twelve . And all the guys were sixteen , (pause) intended listener . and fifteen. They don ' wanna do out wi th twelve year o lds . So I let everyone know V. ALTERNATE FOREGRO UNDING STRATE GIES MAIN PROP A. II ABOUT" QU ESTIONS: that she was thirteen and a half, almost f ourteen . A spea k er may draw the listener's attention t o a (1 0 ) GTS3 : 47 pa rticular referent in ways other than by the hald RE F BACKGROUND PROPS presentati on of that referent as i n "Re ferent + Proposi­ K: Y' know , the cops if they see you, a nd they think tion" constructions . For example , the speaker may MAIN PROP introduce/ re- introduce the referent t hr o ugh the use "Well, he's 18 ," A lotta time the~ ' ll letcha by , of an "about" question: "How about X?" " What abou t X?", quicker than a 16 year old or a 1 year old. where X represents s ome o bject, event, etc . (See also Cll) GTS 3 :64 Gundel 1975) . The response t o this questio n provides o CL has been talk i ng about how her car broke down) propositi on relevant to X (the referent). Here , then , REF two or mo re separate utterances conv e y what is convey e d K: Oh - oh wait . In Mammo th my Jeep I ' ve got surf in "Referent + Proposition" utterances. For exampl e·, BACKGROUND PR OPS in (12) an individual named " Hogan" is i ntroduc ed hy stickers all o ver the back windows you know? J in an "about" question. He is i dentified in the subse­ L: Mmllhm q uent three turns, at which point J is able t o c o nvey K: An ' up there they hate surf . Surf is the lowe//st the relevant proposition ('' he ' s a rea l bitchin ' guy "). th i ng, i n the world . An ' all the adults frown upon it, the kids hate ' em, they see me , a n ' Cl2) GTS4: 21 they used to throw rocks II you know? An ' I REF was avoiding r o cks. So I finally decided this J: How about a guy named Ho gan? MAIN PROP K: Bill Ho gan? isn't f or me y ' know , I took razor blades, took K: Bill Hogan all my surf stickers off? So it l o oked like K: Yeah I know him r ea l wel l . just a no rmal every day Jeep . .. PROP J : I do t oo he ' s a //real hitchin' guy . See also example (2) . In these cases it appears that the speaker refers In example (1 3) , D asks his li s teners t o c onsider a to s ome entity then r e a l ized that he must prov ide addi ­ particular type o f person (ra t her t han some spe c i fic tio nal information. Fo r examp le , in (11) K has t o pro­ individual) : v i d e information about h is Jeep and about the atmosphere in Mammoth so that the addressee can understand the Cl 3 ) GTS 5 : 3 7 activity described in the major predicatio n, i.e~ that ( Talking a bout self- conscious people) K had to take stickers off the windows o f the Jeep in REF Mammoth . Similarly in (2), K had to provide further D: Well what a bou t the gu y ge ts up o n t he information concerning Pat McGee, i.e . that he lived dance floor, who f ee l s t ha t h e can ' t danc e. with K, so that the hearer would understand the r e levance PR OP o f the referent to the topic under discussion . R: - He ' s scared . These observations indicate that the Referent + Proposition construction is a form o f "unplanned" speech . B. DIRECTI VES TO LOCATE REFERENT: In more planned modes of speaking , the interlocutor On e extremely common strategy f o r hri nging a referen t mi ght pre sent such backgr ound i nformation a s a non­ into the discour se either as an Alternative o r as restrictive relative clause or adverbial clause embedded Particular Case if for the speaker t o request that t he in a matrix clause. Or the interlocutor might present listener l o cate the r eferent in memory o r in the no n­ this information in a sequence of we ll- f o rmed sentences verbal context. Here the speaker makes use o f o ne o r that anticipate the major predication to be made . Before more LOCAT ING VERBS , f o r example "loo k at" " s ee" " c o nsider" "turn to" "watch out f o r" "remember" " know" "return t o " 251 250

k nown/knowabl e X. I n e xample (17) , we find this use of "check out" "take a glance at". Certa i n of these ver bs "you k now" i ntermi ngled with o ther l ocating verbs used t o are used t o locate ref erents i n both memor y and v i s ible the same end . envi ronment of the talk t a king p l ace . For exa mp l e , one can a sk a l i s t ener to "look a t" some i nd i v i dual no t · (17) GTSl - 73 pre sent , using " look" in a metaphorical s e nse and o f (In discus sion of picki ng fights in downto wn cour s e one can ask the l i stener to "look " at some Los Ang e l e s ) o bject present i n the physical setting . A: I t hink- Locating Verbs appear i n a number o f sent enc e R: Ye a h that was much better man , You know an ' moda l ities . For exa mple , they may a p pear i n an interro ­ REF gative s entence . as in example (14): - Lookit these people come walkin down the stree t ( Y' know dey oughta be- ) Y' see dis (14) GTS4: 28 e xecutive . y ' know wid his wife y 'know REF PROP K: (D ju remember) Ko uhalan?/ / ( Fat k i d two ou ' come up t ' him an 'chose ' im o ff , he oh nine?) PROP J : Oh God , yeah , I know that guy . doesn' t know what de hell ' s happened PR OP K: Did Mel/McGee hates him. Here we f ind t h e s pea ker making use of the Lo cating Verbs J : That guy ' s i nsane we ' re dr i vin ' down the " know", "looki t", "see". freeway . .. . If t h e s peaker f eels that the listener ma y not k now (15) GTSl- 73 ~h e 7n formation h e wi s hes t o convey , he may use " know" REF i n eith~r of two wa ys : He may ask if the listener knows L: Wh a ddya think of Paul t he e nt ity , .pr opos i tion to be discussed. This does the K: Paul the //quiet guy? wor k o f ma k i ng t h ~ l istener aware that there is something PR OP t hat h e .doe s not i n fac t know and puts him in a state L: He was the quiet one who never said anything. o f re a?i n e~ s t o r e cei v e t he information (P.eringer , pers. communication). In ma ny cases , t he speaker does not Mo re widesprea d in conversatio nal discour se i s thP use e x pe7t t hat the l i stener does know the b i t o f inf orma i on o f a Locating Ve r b i n the imperati ve mo de . By far the he w7ll conv ey . Ind eed often the spea ker makes it im­ mo st commonly used is the verb " look" or "look ii t ". p~ss ible f or tre list e ner to know the information at the t i me o f the " Do y ou know? " info rmatio n reauest . The (15) GTS4 : 12 REF speaker ma :( simp l y ask " Do you know what? 'i or "Know what? " . T: . . . Lo ok , if I ha ve - f or example Pica ss0 . H e~e the listener is being informed that there is some­ PR OP thing he d oe~ not k now . He is o bliged to respond with the I think he ' s an individual , who w- you may reque st f or information "What?" or "No what? " This in cla ssify him as be i ng neur otic o r I d on ' t 1 t urn obl iges him t o attend t o the subs~quent response know what , but I don t t hink he i s , I ( Sack s 1 955 ) . Th e q ue stion "You know wh a t? ", then . is a think he ' s ...... p~ werf~l t ool f or a speaker who wishes to control the RE F d ire ctio n .of the lis tener ' s attention . The question J : ( Lookit) the guy wh o cut o ff his ea r o perates in mu ch the s ame manner as the use of the R: Tha t ' s anot her man "s WllI(lo ns - res po n~ e " adjacency pai r ( Schegloff 1972) . A T : That was Van Gogh s ummons o r calling out of someo ne's name is usually PROP responded t o with s ome quer y such a s "Yes? " " Wh a t is it? " J : We l l , he was nuts , wasn ' t//he? " Wh at do :(OU wa i;t?" . Having ask e d this question the party summo ned i s obliged t o attend to its response . Gi ve n The Locati ng Verb " know" does no t a ppear as suc h in the that " you ~ no17" q uestions are such effecti ve attention imper ati ve, i . e. a s " know X!" . We find, however, that - g ~tters, i t is no t surpri s i ng that t hey a re employed t o the t e x t s are littered with the constructio n " you know" shi ft to a novel t o pic o r int roduce a necdo te . Examples ( y ' know) . We argu e that "you knew" s ometime s operates ~15) a nd ( 16 ) i llustrates s uch uses. Example ( 18) as a d irect i v e t o t h e l iste ner t o put himself in the ill us t r a tes a no t a lto gether successful use . s tate o f knowing X, whe r e X is s ome refere nt or pro pos itio n conv eyed . That i s , the spea ker is directing the listener(s) to search i n memory or i n the immed iate cont ext f or s ome 253 252

( 21) T , D, ( 8) GTSl :lO (T and D have been talking aaout a scratch on (in c ourse of joke- telling session) D' s b a ck when D abruptly notices a book on L : You know what a cute one is? You wanna hear the floor) what a cute one is? What ' s purple and D: See i t / A B Cl See it/ SeP/ A R C I Look '. / goes barn barn barn barn . A four door plum. T: Oh yes/ (pause) D: ABC i n ' ere/ K: Terrific. A second group of communicators who employ Locating ( 9) GTS1:54 Ve rbs i n imperative a nd interrogative utterances to this ( K ~asting someth ing) end are users of Ame rican Sign Language. Friedman (lq7fi) K: Aahh '. ((whispered)) This is good. mentions that the sigri equivalent for " know " can he used L : You know what my father keeps down in the to establish a referent as a " topic " (ibid: 28) . The basement? Cases o f champagne. s ign - equivalent for the sentence "There ' s a train that A: What? runs between San Jos e a nd San Fra ncisco" begins with the (K) : (Idin'thear . ) sequence YOU KNOW - THAT/ TRAIN/ . Similarly English L: Cases of cham//pagne . sentences containing relative clauses may be glossed in sign by initially asking or telling the addressee to A second alternative available to a speaker who feels "remember" or " know" some referent and then predicating ~he listener may not know what/who he is talking about is something of that referent, eg . "I saw the man who bought to assert that he, the speaker , knows this information, the dog" may be glossed in sign: REMEMBER MAN BO UG HT i . e . "I k now X". Example (20) illustrates this strategy. DOG? SAW .HIM (INDEX) .

(2 0) GTS1:2 0 VI. LEFT - DI SLOCATIONS OR DISCOURSES? (In discussion of going to a psychiatrist at an The strategies presented above represent discourse early age) strategies f or getting the listener to attend to and K: Oh he is a young 'un hhh know a particular referent . The referent is introduced R: Maybe younger I don't really remember i n one utterance, u sually a directive. Subsequent L: (If you think- ) I know this guy who has been uttera nces provide one or more predicatio ns concerning going since he was eight y ears old and he's the referent . The major predicati on may or may not even worse off than he- when he started. be preceded by backgr ound information relevant t o the R: I thought you were going to say worse off than referent a nd its r o le in the predica tion. me hehhhhehh We argue t hat Referent + Proposition constructions perform very similar communicative work. The utter ing The use of Locating Verbs to d irect the listener ' s of the initial referent functions as a directive t o attentio n t o something the speaker wants to talk about attend t o that referent. Subsequent propositions prov i d e is common to two sets of speakers other than backgr ound i nformation and /or a major predicati on adult speakers of English . First of all , we find this concerning the referent. In this sense , the Referent + strategy heavily employed by young children acquiring Propositi on c o nstructions look more like discourses Eng lish. Atkinson (1974) reports that children at the (a sequence of commun i c ative acts) than a single one - word stage use verbs such as "see" and "look" to syntactically bound communicative ac . In fact , it is secure the attention of some co- present individual . Once possdble to paraphrase many o f the Referent + Prnposi i on the attention of the i ndividual is captured , the child constr uctions by placing a locating verb bef o re the may go on to predicate something of the object of attention . initial referent. For example , his behavior is highly characteristic of the twins ' conversations recorded by Keenan (1974) . The transcripts " But all grownups w- they do it to kids " = But (look at, from 33 months to 37 months are laced wi th demands and c o nsider) all grownups Clater) requests that the conversational p artner look at w- they do it to kids some object in the room. Often the speaker would repeat the directive over and over until the other child complied. Further support for an underlying locating verh is seen in (Keenan and Schieffelin 1975) Example ( 21) illustrates cases in which a pronoun appears as the initial referent. the character of such communications . 255 254

~he pronoun appears in the objecti ve c a s e in English in thesP context (e . g . me , him , us , etc.). In these We link the two expressions because they f ollow one c ases as well, the construction could be paraphrased ano ther in real speech time and because we assume t h a t with a locating ver b: speakers normally make their utterances relevant to Me , I don 't wear stockings (Look at) me, I don 't wear prior talk, and because it ma k es sense t o l ink them stockings . (given their content and our k nowledge o f the world) . In such c onstructio ns, then, referents and propositions Him , he n e ver studies . = (Look at him), he never are linked pragmatically rat~er than syntactically . studies. In this paper we have displayed many of the . That t he Referent and Proposition function more like discourse properties of Re ferent + Proposition construc­ a discourse than a single construction i s supported by tions. We have argued that formally a nd functionally formal chara cteristics as well. the expressio n of the i n itial referent and the expre~sion 1) PR OSOD I C BREAKS BETWEEN REFEREN T AND PROPOSI TI ON of subsequent predications c onstitute mo r e o r less We find t h at in most examples of Referent + Propositi on i ndependent communicative acts. We say "more or less" that there is an intonationa l break between Referent and because these constructions va ry in the extent to which Pr oposition . In most cases , the referent is uttered with they are formally integrat ed . For exampl e , (1) is a slight rising intonation (represented by comma in prosodically and syntactically mo re c ohes i ve than (2 2) . transcript). This is then often followed by a pause or But we may say the same f or relations between separate by a hesitation marker (e . g. uhh) . In o ther cases the utterances wi thi n a stretch of discourse. They may be referent is expressed with a falling intonation f o llowed more or less formal ly bound through the use of conjunctions, by a brief pause . adverbs, anaphora and the like. When we contrast discourse 2) I NTERR UPTI ONS wi~h sent~nce, we are speaking of a c ontinuum. Along An o ther feature that supports the s equential nature this continuum, communicativ e acts are morpho- syntactically of these constructions is the presence o f interruptions or o therwise formally linked t o var y ing extents. . _We may use such a c o ntinuum to characterize properties ~e twee n r~ferent and subsequent propositions, We find interruptions of two sorts. First , there may be interrup­ wit h in and across l a nguages. For example , written and spoken (particula rly i nformal , spontaneous) modes o f a language ~i o ns fr?m a listener (Example (6)). Second , and more interesting , there may b e self- interruptions . For may differ with respect to discourse or sentential example, we may c onsider the cases in which the speaker str~tegies for communicating (Duranti a nd Keena n , f o r h ­ coming). Further more, languages ma y differ from o ne exp~esses the referent and then i nserts background infor­ mation ab?ut th= referent before the main point as self­ another . in the extent to which they rely on sequences interruptio ns. ( See examples (6), (7 ), (9), (1 0 ) , and (11)) . rather than single sentences t o convey information ( c . f . 3) LOOSE SYNTACTIC TIES Fo~ey 1976) . For example, t opic - prominent languages The initial Referent is not tightly tied to the (Li and Thompson 1976) may turn out t o be d iscourse sub7equent proposition in the same wa y as sentential - oriented languages, whereas subject- prominent languages sub]ects are . (Keenan 1976) . The i nitial referent does may turn out to be more sentence- oriented. Fi nally, the not control verb agreement for example . Further even the continuum may be useful in assessing changes over time p resence o f a coreferential pronoun is not always manifest within a language. For example, ontogenetic development of English is marked by a move away f rom d iscour se strategies ( e~a~ple (2) (ll)) . We find several cases in which the f o r communicating towards greater reliance on sentences i~it ia l re~erent i7 ~in k e d t o the subsequent proposition simply by Juxtaposition. Fo r exampl e : (i . e . greater reliance of syntax) ( Keenan a nd Klein iq75 , Keenan and Schieffeli n 1976 , Scallon 1 974). Similarly (22) GTS3 : 62 diachronic changes may be marked by syntactization of (L has been talking about how her grand­ earlier d iscourse constructions ( c . f. Sankoff and Brown mother treats her father as small child) 1975). L: Oy ! my fa - my my - // my grandmo ther . My father comes in the house " OH MY SON MY SON"

In (22) the referent of "my grandmother" is linked t o the subsequent proposition as utterances in a discourse are linked, i . e. by the maxim o f relevance (Grice 1968 ) . 256 257

BIBLI OG RAPHY Scollon R. (19 74) One Childs Language from One to Two : Th~ Origin of Construction, Working Papers i n Lin­ Atk inson , M. (1974) Prerequisites t o Reference, Paper guistics, Vol . 6, No . 5, Un i versit y of Hawaii . delivered at B.A.A . L. meeting, England. Ch afe, W. (1972) Discourse Structure and Human Knowledge , in Language ComErehension a nd the Acquisition o f Knowledge, Washi ngton . D. C., Winsto n . Ch afe, W. (1 976 ) Givenness , Con trastiv eness, Def i n iteness , Subjects, Topics and Point o f View, in Li , C. (Ed.). uran t i , A. and Keenan, E. Ochs (forthcoming) Planned and Unplanned Discourse . Foley , W. (1976) Ph . D. Dissertation , Un i v ersity o f Cali­ f o r n ia, Berkeley. Friedma n , L. (1976) The Manifestation of Subject, Ob j ect , Topic in American Si~n Language , in C. Li (Ed.) Grice, H. (1968) Logic and Conversation, (published in Syntax and Semantics , vol. 3 , Speech Acts, P . Cole a nd J . L. Morga n (Eds.) , Academic Press, N. Y. , 1975) Gruber, J . (1967) Topicalization in Child Language, Foundations of La nguage, Vo l. 3 , No. 1, pp . 37 - 65 . Hawkinson, A. and Hyman, L . (1 974) Hierarchies of Natural Topic in Shona , i n Studies in African Li nguistics, '! ol. 5 , No . 2 , pp. 1 47 - 170. Je:ferson, G. (n . d . ) Transcript i on o f Five Group Therapy Sessions . Keenan, E. L . (1976) Toward s a Un i versal Definition of ' Subject ', in C. Li (Ed . l , pp. 303 - 333. Keena n , E. Ochs (1974) Conversational Competence in Children , in Journal of Child Language , Vo l. 1, No . 2. Keenan, E. Oc hs and Kle i n , E . (1975) Coherency in Children ' s Discourse, in Journal o f Psycholinguistics Research . Keenan, E. Ochs and Schieffelin, B. (1975) Topic a s a Discourse Notion : A Study of Topic i n t he Conversations o f Childre n and Adults , in C. Li (Ed.), pp . 335 - 384 . Kuno , S . (1972) Functional Sentence Perspective, in Li ngu istic Inquir~ , Vo l. 3 , No. 3, pp. 269 - 320. Li , C. (Ed.) (197 6 ) SubJeCt and Topic , Ac ademic Press, N.Y . Li , C. a nd Thompson , S. 0 976) Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language , in C. Li (Ed.), pp . 457 - 489 . Payne , J . (1973) Sentence Con j unctio n and Subordination i n Russ ian , in You Take The High No de and I ' ll Take t he Low On e, CLS , pp . 305 - 325 . Ros s, J . ( 1967 ) Constra i nts on Variables i n Syntax, Ph . D. Dissertation , MI .. Sacks, H. (1966 - 1968) Unpublished Lecture Notes . Sa nkoff , G. and Brown , P. Cl975) On the Origins o f Syntax in Di scourse: A Case Study o f Tok Pisin Relatives, M. S. Schegloff, E . (1 972) Se quences in Conversational Openings, Gump erz, J . a nd Hymes , D. (Ed . ) Directions in. - Sociolinguistics.