In grammar books, the various functions of and as phrasal coordinator and clausal conjunction are treated as standard knowledge. In addition, studies on the uses of and in everyday talk-in-interaction have described its discourse-organizational functions on a more global level. In the phonetic literature, in turn, a range of phonetic forms of and have been listed. Yet, so far few studies have related the phonetic features of and to its function. This contribution surveys a range of phonetic forms of and in a corpus of private American English telephone conversations. It shows that the use of forms such as [ænd], [ɛn], or [ən], among others, is not random but, in essence, correlates with the syntactic-pragmatic scope of and and the cognitive closeness of the items the and connects. This, in turn, allows the phonetic design of and to contribute to the organization of turn-taking. The findings presented are based on conversation-analytic and interactional-linguistic methodology, which includes quantitative analyses.
Barth-WeingartenD. (2003). Concession in spoken English. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
2.
Barth-WeingartenD. (2009). When to say something: Some observations on prosodic-phonetic cues to the placement and types of responses in multi-unit turns. In Barth-WeingartenD.DehéN.WichmannA. (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics (pp. 143–181). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
3.
Barth-WeingartenD. (2010). On the role of phonetics in signaling discourse functions in spoken English: The many shades ofand. In HelbigJ.SchalleggerR. (Eds.), Proceedings Anglistentag 2009, Klagenfurt (pp. 21–34). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
4.
Barth-WeingartenD.Couper-KuhlenE. (2011). Action, prosody and emergent constructions: The case ofand. In AuerP.PfänderS. (Eds.), Emergent constructions (pp. 263–292). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
5.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Longman.
6.
BoldenG. (2010). ‘Articulating the unsaid’ via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 5–32.
7.
BrintonL. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
8.
BybeeJ. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.
9.
Couper-KuhlenE.Barth-WeingartenD. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of M. Selting et al. (2009)Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 12, 1–51. Retrieved from: http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de
10.
Couper-KuhlenE.SeltingM. (2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In SeltingM.Couper-KuhlenE. (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
11.
CurlT. S. (2005). Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: The phonetic differentiation of ‘repetitions’. Discourse Processes, 35, 1–43.
12.
De StefaniE.HorlacherA. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. Pragmatics, 18(3), 381–406.
13.
DilleyL.Shattuck-HufnagelS.OstendorfM. (1996). Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 423–444.
14.
FoxB. A.MaschlerY.UhmannS. (2009). Morpho-syntactic resources for the organization of same-turn selfrepair: Cross-linguistic variation in English, German and Hebrew. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10, 245–291. Retrieved from www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de
15.
GimsonA. C.CruttendenA. (1994). Gimson’s pronunciation of English (5th ed.). London, UK: Arnold.
16.
GivónT. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. Volumes 1 and 2. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
17.
HeritageJ. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
18.
HeritageJ. (1999). Conversation analysis at century’s end: Practices of talk-in-interaction, their distributions, and their outcomes. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1&2), 69–76.
19.
HeritageJ.RothA. (1995). Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 1–60.
20.
HeritageJ.SorjonenM.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences:And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23, 1–29.
21.
HopperP. (2001). Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In BybeeJ.NoonanM. (Eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honour of Sandra A. Thompson (pp. 145–173). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
22.
HopperP. (2008). Emergent serialization in English: Pragmatics and typology. In GoodJ. (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change (pp. 253–284). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
JeffersonG. (1972). Side sequences. In SudnowD. (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York, NY: Free Press.
24.
JeffersonG. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47–96.
25.
JeffersonG. (1983). Issues in the transcription of naturally-occurring talk: Caricature versus capturing pronunciational particulars. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 34, 1–12.
26.
JonesD. (1967). An outline of English phonetics (9th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Heffer & Sons.
27.
JonesD. (2003). Cambridge English pronouncing dictionary.Ed. by RoachP.HartmanJ.SetterJ.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KenyonJ. S.KnottT. A. (1953). A pronouncing dictionary of American English. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company.
29.
KöhlerR.AltmannG.PiotriwskiR. G. (Eds.). (2005). Quantitative Linguistik: ein internationales Handbuch [Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook] (HSK 27). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
30.
KorolijaN.LinellP. (1996). Episodes: Coding and analyzing coherence in multiparty conversation. Linguistics, 34(4), 799–831.
31.
LakoffR. (1971). If’s, and’s, and but’s about conjunction. In FillmoreC.LangendoenT. (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 115–149). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32.
LangE. (1991). Koordinierende Konjunktionen. In StechowA. v.WunderlichD. (Eds.), Semantik – Semantics: Ein Internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 597–623). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
33.
LindströmJ. (2006). Interactional linguistics. In ÖstmanJ.-O.VerschuerenJ. (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Retrieved from http://www.benjamins.com/ cgi-bin/
34.
LocalJ. (2004). Getting back to prior talk: And-uh(m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English. In Couper-KuhlenE.FordC. (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 377–400). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
35.
LocalJ.KellyJ.WellsW. H. G. (1986). Towards a phonology of conversation: Turn-taking in Tyneside English. Journal of Linguistics, 22, 411–437.
36.
LocalJ.WalkerG. (2005). Methodological imperatives for investigating the phonetic organization and phonological structures of spontaneous speech. Phonetica, 62, 120–130.
37.
MazelandH.HuiskesM. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In SeltingM.Couper-KuhlenE. (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
NevileM. (2006). Making sequentiality salient: And-prefacing in the talk of airline pilots. Discourse Studies, 8(2), 309–332.
40.
OgdenR. (2004). Non-modal voice quality and turn-taking in Finnish. In Couper-KuhlenE.FordC. (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 29–62). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
41.
OverstreetM.YuleG. (1997). On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 25(3), 250–258.
42.
Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English (2003). Ed. by UptonC.KretschmarW.Jr.KonopkaR.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS.LeechG.SvartvikJ. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, UK: Longman.
44.
ReberE. (in press). Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 215). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
45.
Research on Language and Social Interaction (ROLSI). (1993). [Whole volume]26(1–4), 1–426.
46.
SacksH.SchegloffE. A.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
47.
SchegloffE.A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128.
48.
SchiffrinD. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SelkirkE. (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In FrotaS.VigarioM.FreitasM. J. (Eds.), Prosodies: With special reference to Iberian languages (pp. 11–58). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
50.
SköriesU. (1998). Features of a blame type using and: An analysis of an example. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 49–58.
51.
SköriesU. (1999). Bedeutung und Funktion von and als dialogische Instruktion. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
52.
TurkM. J. (2004). Using and in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 219–250.
53.
WalkerG. (2004). The phonetic design of turn endings, beginnings, and continuations in conversation (PhD thesis). University of York, Department of Language and Linguistic Sciences, York, UK.
54.
WellsJ. C. (1990). Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow, UK: Longman.
