CLAUSE COMBINING IN

GRAMMAR AND DISCOURSE

edited by

JOHN HAIMAN
University o f Manitoba
and ^
SANDRA A. THOMPSON
University o f California ^

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

Amsterdam/Philadelphia

1988
 Linking intonation units in spoken English
Wallace Chafe
University o f California, Santa Barbara

There are several ways in which the discussion that follows is unusual,
even within the framework of this volume. Most importantly, it deals with
spoken English, not written English, and certainly not the mythical English
one often finds in discussions of syntax. Second, it does not exactly deal with
clause combining as such, but rather with the linkages that exist between suc­
cessive ‘intonation units,’ as spoken language is produced in real time. The
majority of intonation units are clauses, but many are not. Third, since few
linguists are accustomed to examining language in terms of linkages between
intonation units, the discussion is of necessity more exploratory than defini­
tive — only a tentative first step in the direction of an eventual clearer under­
standing of what has to be an important aspect of spoken language, and by
extension all language.

Intonation units and clauses

When one listens carefully to spoken language, or even when one

examines a careful transcription of it, one can hardly help noticing that it
occurs in a series of relatively brief spurts of vocalization. In their prototypical
form, these spurts exhibit a single coherent intonation contour characterized
by one or more intonation peaks and a cadence that is recognizable as either
clause-final or sentence-final. Usually they are separated by pauses that last
anywhere from a fraction of a second to several seconds. It seems appropriate
to call them ‘intonation u n i t s . B y way of illustration, the following is a series
of intonation units produced by a speaker who is discussing a two-year-old of
his acquaintance who has a mother named Cindy:^
I
2 WALLACE CHAFE
a. ... like almost anyone .. Cindy ... meets when we’re like at the
( 1)
beach or in the park,
b. ... w ill... uh— .. ask how old he is.
c. ... not s .. surprisingly,
d. ... apd when she says two and a half,
e. ... they
f. ... my god. ^
g. he’s so big and .. athletic.
h. ... I mean .. uh— ... a coupleiimes we’ve run into ... other
kids his age.
i. ... he ju s t... you know ... makes them look like little babies
next to him.
j . ... and he loves to play.
k. .. he’s always running around,
l. .. and playing sports,
m ...... anyway.
We will be looking at two major kinds of linkages between such intona­
tion u n its. First, there are the linkages signaled by intonation, particularly the
cadences distinguished here by commas and periods. Thus, there is a differ­
ence between t L continuation that is signaled by the non-falhng pitch at the
end of (a) and the closure that is signaled by the falling pitch at the end of (b).
' Second, there are the linkages signaled by various ‘connectives,’ words whose
chief function is to signal linkages: for example, the like in (a), the and when
in (d), the I mean in (h), the and in (d), 0) and (1), and the anyway in (m). In
a sense, the discussion of this ‘connective’ category is an extension into spo­
ken American English of the ‘Conjunction’ chapter of Halliday and Hasan
(1976: 226-273).
We can note in passing that the anyway in (m) signals a certain relation
between the entire preceding episode and the entire episode that is about to
follow. In the long run we should be concerned not only with linkages
between small segments such as intonation units, but also with those between
larger, episodic segments. Here, however, most of the discussion will be
restricted to linkages between smaller units.
It is productive to suppose that each intonation unit is a linguistic expres­
sion of the particular information on which a speaker is focusing his or her
consciousness at a particular moment (Chafe, 1980b; 1987a). If there is vahdity
in that interpretation, then intonation units provide us with valuable windows
to the flow of thought by showing how much and what kinds of information
LINKING INTONATION UNITS 3
are being focussed on at different times, but also — of special interest to us
here — the kinds of movement that take place from one focussed piece of
information to the next while thought is being verbalized.
Suppose, just to have a label, we call each piece of focussed information
amTdek.^There is no idea, in this sense, that exists in isolation; each is always
part of some larger sequence, situated within some larger context. Crucial to
a better understanding of human thought is an understanding of idea sequenc­
ing, of how one idea may lead to another^By studying the possible linkages
between intonation units, we can gain some important insights into the nature
of this sequencing. What follows is intended as a start in that direction. It is
based on an examination of the linkages observed within about a thousand
pairs of adjacent intonation units, produced by eleven different speakers who
were participants in informal dinnertable conversations. These conversations
were recorded as part of a larger study of differences between spoken and
written language.^
Before going any further we need to confront the question of the relation
between intonation units and clauses. It may be noted that in example (1)
intonation units (d), (g), (h), (i), 0 ), and (k) are complete single clauses. The
sequence of (a) and (b) together forms one complex clause, with both (a) and
(b) containing their own embedded clauses. Intonation unit (1) is a clause with
a missing subject. The remaining intonation units — (c), (e), (f), and (m) —
are not clauses at all. It is typical for about 70% of the intonation units in con­
versations among academic people to be complete single clauses. There is,
nevertheless, considerable individual variation, ranging from less than 60%
for some individuals to more than 80% for others. Clearly one aspect of con­
versational style is the extent to which a person produces intonation units that
are also complete single clauses.
But what exactly is a clause, and why should clauses and intonation units
coincide much of the time, but not all of the time? One way to look at clauses
is in terms of their constituency: a clause is a segment of language that consists
of a subject and a predicate. In terms of the idea that underlies a clause, such
an idea is a composite, one of whose constituents is some referent that is taken
as a ‘starting point.’ The idea then builds on that starting point with some
piece of ‘added information.’ The starting point is typically the concept of a
person, less often of a thing, still less often of an event, state, or abstraction.
The added information is typically the concept of some event or state. The
starting point, verbalized as the subject of the clause, usually serves to link the
idea to an already established context. The added information, verbalized as
4 WALLACE CHAFE
the predicate, is the contribution made by the idea to the ongoing flow of
thought within the speaker’s mind and, by the speaker’s uttering the clause,
within the hearer’s mind as well. Thus, in the following pair of intonation
units the same concept verbalized in (a) as my room and in (b) as it functions
both times as the starting point. (The speaker had already been talking-about
her apartment, so that the concept of the room had been,prepared for.) In (a)
the added information was the state v erbalized^ was small, in (b) it was the
state verbalized as was like nine by twelve^or something:
(2) a. ..my room was small.
b. ..it was like ..nine-by twelve or something.
Sometimes there is no starting point, but only added information, as when the
idea expressed by the clause does not apply to a particular referent, but rather
‘ambiently’ (Chafe, 1970: 102-103; Sasse, in press). In English the resulting
clause usually contains the dummy subject it:
(3) a. ...it was really hot,
b. it was in the summer and.
It is intriguing to speculate that the intonation units found in spoken lan­
guage manifest the flow of ideas, while clauses manifest the flow of language
__the way ideas are verbalized (cf. Chafe, 1979). Ideas, in themselves, are
successive activations .of small amounts of information. Their verbalization
then typically requires that these successive activations be expressed in terms
of a starting point and added information, a subject and a predicate, a clause.
But ideas are often expressed as parts of clauses, or as fragments whose possi­
ble expression in the clause format never materializes. Sometimes, on the
other hand, an idea may be verbalized as a tombination of clauses.
To illustrate further, suppose that a speaker, having successfully uttered
a clause, goes on to add further information not expressed in clausal form.
(4) a. .. and then she .. .went faster.
b. ...in that class,
c. .. .you know than in the .. .beginning class.
From an edited, written point of view it might seem that this speaker had said
‘And then she went faster in that class than in the beginning class.’ But from
the point of view of the successive activation of ideas, she first focussed on the
idea verbalized as (a), ‘and then she went faster,’ a complete sentence closed
off with a falling pitch. Having done that, she then focused on the idea that
the going faster took place ‘in that class,’ verbalized as an afterthought to (a),
LINKING INTONATION UNITS 5
but showing with a non-falling pitch that she already intended to add the com­
parison verbalized as a second afterthought in (c), ‘you know than in the
beginning class.’ The following example is similar:
" ' (5) a. ...so I was sure there was something wrong with my spine or,
.. b. ..you know brain tumor at least,
, c. ..uh ... spinal meningitis,
d. . .or something like that.
This speaker’s successive focusing on different possibilities again extends the
clause beyond its original formulation through a series of separately focussed-
on alternatives.
There are also cases of the opposite sort, showing several clauses within
a single intonation unit. For example, a main clause may be followed by
another, ‘adverbial’ clause within the same intonation unit:
I! (6) but ...there were a few incidents that happened with me just
because I was a foreigner.
Or a relative clause may modify a noun in another clause without forming a
separate intonation unit:
(7) ... one of the things we had to do was type.
Or one clause may be embedded as the complement of a verb in a ‘higher’
clause:
(8) I thought it was interesting.
These various devices with which a speaker may verbalize a single idea as
more than a single clause lie beyond the scope of the present discussion. Here
} we will look only at various ways in which separate intonation units, verbaliz­
ing separate ideas, may be linked one with another. In effect, the discussion
will focus on the kinds of linkages that occur between intonation units that are
either clauses or less than clauses.
Our starting point, then, is a view of the flow of thought and the flow of
language in which one idea is replaced by another through time. Each succes­
sive idea is triggered by, and in fact contains information that overlaps with
the idea that preceded it, but at the same time each new idea exhibits some
change from the preceding one. We are interested in how language expresses
i the links that may exist between one idea and the next as the flow of ideas is
verbalized. The discussion will be limited to links between intonation units
I that are produced by a single speaker, and will thus ignore connections across
6 WALLACE CHAFE LINKING INTONATION UNITS 7

the turns of different speakers. We will be examining the two major kinds of Wheel-spinning. A second, not at all rare situation in which one intona­
linkages mentioned above: those that involve intonation, and those that tion unit ends with a period intonation and fails to be linked with an overt
involve ‘connectives’ — conjunctions and similar words that overtly verbalize connective to the next unit involves a temporary stoppage in the forward flow
the link itself. |t is easiest to begin by looking at the purely intonational links. o f information, where the speaker momentarily engages in wheel-spinning. In
the following example the speaker had just been asked a question, to which he
Linking with intonation alone responded:
(12) a. ... yeah.
There is a major distinction to be niade between intonation units ending
b. .. that’s right.
with the kind of falling pitch that signals closure on an idea or idea sequence,
c. .. yeah .. that’s the idea.
and intonation units ending with^any of a number of other pitch contours that
signal continuation. I will refer to the falling contour as period intonation , The prosodies of these three intonation units are in important respects identi­
since it is most often represented in written English (as well as in the trans­ cal: in each case the last word contains the intonation peak, which is followed
cribed examples in this paper) with a period. It contrasts with a variety of by the period intonation. It can be seen that the speaker says essentially the
other contours to which I will refer collectively as ‘comma intonations.’ same thing in (b) that he says in (a), and that he continues to say essentially
In a sense the least marked linkage between intonation units is that in the same thing in (c). This is not to imply that he was wasting his or his inter­
which one unit ends with the period intonation and there is no connective locutor’s time; he may have judged his answer important enough to dwell on
word linking it to the next unit. There are several functionally quite different ,it in this way. But the successive intonation units add nothing else that is new.
situations that lead to this result. The following are among the most conspicu­ Here is a similar, if slightly more complex example:
ous situations of this kind. (13) a. ... it’s ... it’s a pleasure.
b. .. .I mean it.
Afterthoughts. Quite often in spoken language a period intonation will c. . .I enjoy it.
signal the end of a sentence, but the speaker will then tack on an intonation
Again there are no overt connectives and there is a prosodic echoing. Intona­
unit that conveys a piece of supplementary information relevant to that same
tion units (a) and (c) convey essentially the same idea; (b) expresses some­
sentence. One understands that the speaker chose at first to end the sentence
thing different, but its function is only to emphasize the speaker’s sincerity in
at the period, but then thought of something else that would also be useful for
verbalizing that idea.
the hearer to know, within the same cluster of information. More often than
Wheel-spinning is reminiscent of the ‘couplets’ that are a characteristic
not the additional information is expressed in a prepositional phrase, as in (9)
feature of some oral literatures (McLendon manuscript; Mithun manuscript):
and (10), though it may have some other adverbial status, as in (11):
a pair of intonation units that repeat the same idea in different words. The fol­
(9) a. ... w ell.. it was just obvious I couldn’t ... I couldn’t work, lowing is a translation of a sequence of couplets from a particular Maya ritual
b. ... uh .. with her in the office. (Gossen, 1984: 204):
(IQ) a. ... but ... uh ... my father came .. into possession of some (14) a. your children are gathered together,
papers that his mother had. b. your offspring are gathered together,
b. ... uh .. in German. c. for you to see,
(11) a. ... it was quite .. striking when we were .. the year we were in d. for you to witness.
Japan, e. great San Juan,
b. ... three years ago. f. great patron.
Couplets appear to be a stylized, aesthetically effective use of the same wheel-
 LINKING INTONATION UNITS 9
WALLACE CHAFE
8
longer pause, with a higher pitch and volume at the beginning of (i)^ A shift
spinning that occurs often and unremarkably in colloquial speech in examples of topic is again evident: from a description of grading practices m the other
like (12) and (13). student’s course, the speaker shifts attention to a course she herself was tak-
ing;Tn%ritten language a paragraph boundary would have been appropriate.
Crossing epilode boundaries. In the next example, intonation We have seen three quite different cases in which intonation units suc­
and (c) illustrate an extended form of wheel-spinning, each add m ^ after ceed one another with period intonation signaling closure at the end of t e
period intonation, a further comment on the smallness of the room. The same first unit, and with no overt connective linking the first unit to the second
period intonation appears again at the end of (c),^still w th no over Sometiihes such cases show the tacking on of additional information that
tive linking (c) with (d). Nevertheless, thd relation between (c) and (d) appears as an afterthought. Sometimes they show wheel-spinning, where the
quite different from that between the ehrlier intonation units: speaker reinforces an idea by continuing to focus on it, verbalmng it in a
(15) a. ..my room was small. ferent way, but failing momentarily to move on to the next idea. But some­
b. ...it was like .. nine by twelve or something. times we find a major forward movement: a shift not only to a new idea, bu
c. it seemed spacious at the time. to a new paragraph-like episode.
d. ... I came home.
Comma intonation: more to come. The consistent function of the falling
Here there is a major change in subject matter: from the repeated focuses on
pitch prosody in the above cases was to signal closure: the fact that the
the smallness of the room to a quite different focus on the speaker s arnval a
speaker had, at least provisionally, come to the end of an idea or of some
home on a particular occasion, an arrival that antiapates some newsworthy
coherent sequence of ideas. Perhaps the simplest way to s i^ a l a linkage
events to follow. This leap forward in the flow of information is reinforced by
between one intonation unit and the next is to end the first unit with a pitch
certain other prosodic features: a significantly longer pause at the beginmng o
contour that does not fall to the lowest level. English has a collection of such
(d), together with a higher pitch and greater volume. The pause suggests a
contours, all contrasting with the period intonation. There may be a nse, a
major cognitive shift at this point, while the increased pitch and volume
fall-rise, a level continuation, or even a partial fall. These contours have in
signal that the speaker is beginning something new. common their indication that there is more to come: that the intonation unit
^ In the following example the speaker is talking about a course taken by
just uttered is not the end of anything, but is going to be followed by some­
another student in her college dormitory. thing else. It is here, then, that we have our first real example of overt linking:
a .. a—nd uh— ... her course .. required that they write ... short the use of a comma intonation to show that another intonation unit is coming
papers. before any significant closure is reached. , ■« ■ j
b. .. and if you wrote five, The example below followed a discussion of how the speaker had fainted
c. you got an A, while taking a shower, and how she had never fainted before. Her in^r-
d. .. if you wrote four, locufbr then asked ‘Where did you find yourself when you did faint. The
e. you got a B, reply was:
f. if you wrote three,
(17) a. ... I was standing up,
g. you got a C,
b. .. I was taking a shower,
h. it didn’t matter what the papers were like.
i. ... I was taking a philosophy course with another professor, c. ... I had no warning,
d. ..no nothing.
j. ... and we also had to write short papers,
k. ... but ... we also got graded on our papers. At the'tend of each intonation unit there is a comma intonation, up to the clo­
sure in (d). The rising pitches at the ends of (a), (b), and (c) function to signal
OJ interest here is the transition from (h) to (i). Again there is a
each time that the speaker has not yet finished what she is communicating.
nation at the end of (h), and no connecUve linkjng it to (i). Again there
10 WALLACE CHAFE
The comma intonation shows continuation rather than closure, but the
lack of any explicit connective provides no precise signal of the relation
between the one idea and the next. The above speaker is describing several
aspects of her activities and her state at the moment of fainting. These aspects
are simultaneously! true; they each represent parts of her total state. Thergjs-
more here than wheelspinning. The speaker is progressing fronr one idea to
the next, but is at the same time circling around aj:entral concept, not as
clearly moving forward as in the cases we wiU,meet when overt connectives
are discussed below. It is as if she were vowing a single image from different
angles, before moving on to something hew after the closure in (d).
Here is another example: / reached, the and signals that this next idea will be more than just a different
(18) a. ... I came home,
b. I was really exhausted,
c. I was eating a popsicle,
d. ... I was sitting there in my chair,
e. .. .just eating my popsicle.
Again the comma intonation signals a continuation from one idea to another,
but again there is a circling around to view different facets of a single larger
image. As in (17) this image involves the speaker’s state and activities just
prior to a salient sequence of events. The comma intonation signals movement
to another idea, but the absence of a connective shows that this idea remains
within the same larger image and does not move significantly forward.
Linking with ‘coordinating’ connectives
All the examples so far have been characterized by the absence of any
word that explicitly marks the link between one intonation unit and another.
The speaker simply moves from one to the next, either closing off the first
with a period or showing continuation with a comma. About 44% of the cases
of unit linkages examined in this study are of this non-connective type. In
56% of the cases, then, some more specific linkage marker is present. He're is
a brief survey of the more conspicuous of these markers. Other recent works
have treated them in greater detail (for example Schiffrin, 1987 and Schourup,
1985).
and. Fully 50% of the cases with explicit connectives consist of or include
the maximally general connective and. This and is usually uttered at the
beginning of the second unit of a pair, but in a small number of cases it
LINKING INTONATION LHSIITS 11
appears at the end of the first unit. Both possibilities are illustrated in (19),
where and occurs at the beginning of (a) but at the end of (c):
(19) a. and then another day,
- ' b. ...it was really hot,
c. it was in the summer and,
d. . .my room was small.
The' function of and is evidently to signal only that the idea expressed in the
upcoming intonation unit moves forward from the idea that preceded. If a
comma intonation signals that another idea is to follow before closure is
view of something already communicated, as in (17) and (18) above. The
more specific relation between this next idea and the preceding fails to be
specified; the speaker marks only that there is a relation of some kind. As
Schiffrin puts it (1987: 150), “All and displays is continuation, and/or
coordination: more precise identifications depend on discourse content and
structure.”
Evidently, however, the most common relation is that of temporal order­
ing: and is likely to be used when the event conveyed in the second intonation
unit took place after the event conveyed in the first:
(20) a. ..and we ...had gone past it maybe ...about a hundred yards,
b. and we ...decided we’d go back and investigate,
c. ..and ..we did,
d. ..and ...it was ...a teenager,
e. ...quite dead.
f. ...in the ditch.
This sequence describes events that followed immediately after another
sequence; hence the and at the beginning of (a). The decision verbalized in
(b) followed the change of location described in (a). The implementation of
that decision, verbalized in (c), followed the decision itself. The discovery ver­
balized in (d) was next. Wherever there is an and there was a forward move­
ment through time. The absence of and at the beginning of (e) conforms to
the ‘comma intonation without connective’ pattern described earlier. Having
met the teenager in (d), we are told about his state with no connective; there
is no further forward movement through time, but only a circling back to
establish this property of the body. The period intonation at the end of (e) sig­
nals closure, but then the speaker supplements what he has said by giving the
body’s location in (f).
12 WALLACE CHAFE
If temporal sequencing is the most common relation associated with the
use of and, it is certainly not the only one:
(21) a. ...the child is seated,
b. and .[the .. .research assistant starts explaining what’s going on,
c. and here’s this divider and the ...this big wooden thing,
d. ...a—nd uh— ...and ...it’s an art project,^
e. ..and all they have to do is make a,.^.they have to .. follow a
model and draw something.
The movement from (a) to (b) does iiivdlve temporal progression. Intonation
unit (c), however, involves a change in spatial focus simultaneous with (b); we
shift our attention from the seated child and the researcher to the apparatus
before them. With (d) the speaker shifts from this scefte to a more abstract
view of the background against which these events were taking place. In (e)
he remains within that background perspective, but zooms in to a more
specific aspect of it. We see in (21) that intonation units connected by and may
communicate either a temporal or a spatial progression, a shift between con­
crete and abstract, or a zooming in or out. Of course this is only a sample of
the relations that are possible in such cases.
but and or. The connectives but and or are alternatives to and, adding
additional flavors — in the one case of ‘contrary to expectations,’ in the other
;of ‘disjunction’ — to the maximally nonspecific forward movement conveyed
by and. They are, however, considerably less frequent, with but occurring in
these data only one-fifth as often as and, and or less than one-sixteenth as
often. This is not the place to discuss in detail the specific functions of but or
or, but the following excerpts will supplement (20) and (21) as illustrations of
these two more specific kinds of forward movement:
(22) a. . ..I mean I was successful,
b. but I .. I really worried,
(23) a. she’s always had a thing for older men,
b. but this is getting ridiculous,
(24) a. ... then .. we also have .. two kinds of warnings,
b. ... or .. alertings.
(25) a. and she can’t sleep,
b. .. or anything like that.
The vague extension of possibilities illustrated in (25b) may in fact be the most
LINKING INTONATION UNITS 13
common use of or in spoken English, as also in:
(26) a. I’ve never fainted,
b. ... or passed out,
' c. or gotten dizzy,
d. or anything.
The linkage between (a) and (b) in the last example suggests that and,
but, and or, may occur after a period intonation as well as after a comma.
Thus also:
(21) a. ... he just ... you know ... makes them look hke little babies
next to him.
b. ... and he loves to play.
(28) a. so it was a lo—ng it was almost three thousand miles by the
time we were done,
b. but it was ... spectacular.
In the data examined here, and and or occurred much more frequently after a
comma than after a period, while but was equally common in both environ­
ments.
All of the connectives to be discussed in the remainder of this section
were “more common after period boundaries. Whereas and, or, and, more
ambiguously, but tend to relate ideas that are not self-contained but are ele­
ments in a larger sequence, the following connectives tend to initiate some­
thing new after a preceding sequence has been closed off with a period intona­
tion.. In the data examined, about 70% of these connectives occurred after
period intonations, only about 30% after commas.
These connectives are also distinguished by their ability to occur together
with and, a fact that confirms the notion that they add something more
specific to the general linkage signaled by the and. In other words, to take so
as the most common example, we find intonation units that are linked with
and, those that are linked with so, and those that are linked with and so.
Occasionally we find such longer sequences as ‘and so then.’
so. By far the most common of these connectives is so, accounting for
about A0% of the occurrences of connectives of this type in these data. So
most commonly signals that the next idea, or often the decision to verbalize
the next idea, results in some fashion from what has already been said (com­
pare the more extended discussion in Schiffrin 1987: 191-227):
 LINKING INTONATION LTNITS 15
14 WALLACE CHAFE

(34) a. ... I was thinking ... that she has kind of a tough life.
(29) a. I’ve had headaches maybe twice before in my life.
b. ... I mean she ... works,
b. ... so I was sure there was something wrong with my spine or,
c. she has a husband,
(30) a. ... they took a lot of tests. " d. she doesn’t know w h a t... what’s gonna happen,
b . .. Jo— by the ti—me I had the headache it .. they had^the- e. ... she has a kid,
results of the tests. f. that she has to constantly take care of,
In (29) the idea in (b) does not follow literally fron^^he idea in (a), but rather
from the the entire experience of which (a) js^imply the last idea verbalized. like. This word, frequently used in spoken English as a hedge, is also
In (30) the idea conveyed in (b) was not itself a result of (a). Rather, the used extensively as a connective, in which function it is similar to the for
speaker’s decision to verbalize (b) followed from her verbalization of (a). example of expository writing. (Other functions of like are discussed in
This so is not to be confused with the so (an alternative for so that) that Schourup, 1985: 37-63.) The question in (35a) related to the principal
speakeifs experiences in a foreign country. There followed two intonation
introduces a clause of result:
units introduced by like:
(31) a. ... and actually i t .. hooks on,
b. so it doesn’t fall off. (35) a. [Did you feel that people always looked at you?]
b. ... yeah.
Examples like (31b) belong in the category of connectives to be explored in
c. ... I felt .. like I felt a loss of identity when I .. when people
the next section. didn’t.
So, and especially and so, often follow an episode boundary: d. .. like sometimes .. some days it would seem like people
(32) a. .. and all they have to do is make a ... they have to .. follow a weren’t staring at me,
model and draw something, e. it felt really weird.
b. ... and so the uh— .. research assistant explains I’ll just pin the
In (36) the speaker had been telling about a friend who had been offered a
model up here on the divider.
new job. His interlocutor asked the question in (36a):
Intonation unit (a) closes off a general discussion of an assignment given to
(36) a. [Is it something more satisfying to her?]
some students, and (b) then introduces a new series of events beginning with
b. ...a l i —tie,
the research assistant’s explanation. As at other episode boundaries, these
c. ... I mean .. her skills are mainly in education,
cases of so and and so tend to be accompanied by significant hesitating as well
d. ... or— in secretarial.
as higher pitch and volume. e. ... like .. administrative assistant.
Our data show a motley collection of other connectives in this same gen­
eral class. Each of them deserves an extended discussion, but I will only list
well. This connective signals a shift in the flow of information, a partially
them here, giving a rough characterization and one or two examples of each.
new topic, but one that is at the same time closely relevant to what preceded.
The order is one of descending frequency. 1 mean, well, and like are signific­
As Svartvik (1980:177) puts it, well “introduces a part of the discourse that has
antly more frequent than the others. something in common with what went before but also differs from it to some
I mean. While this phrase is not traditionally regarded as one of the Eng­ degree.” It often appears in conversation after such a topic shift has been
lish connectives, in fact it does occur most often at the beginning of an intona­ triggered by the interlocutor. After (37c) the speaker goes on to talk about
tion unit, where it signals an amplification or clarification of the idea that pre­ her own experiences:
ceded it (cf. Schiffrin, 1987: 295-309 and Schourup, 1985: 147-148): (37) a. [You know Bill was really bothered by it.]
(33) a. ... but uh ... it’s going to be hard. b. yeah.
b. I mean I may not really be putting in full time even this quarter.
16 WALLACE CHAFE LINKING INTONATION UNITS 17

c. ... well I wasn’t really much at all. returns to the topic of fainting with:
After (38g) the speaker continues to talk about her previous freedom from (42) a. ... anyway,
fainting episodes (see (26) above): b. ... and then I fainted again.
(38) a. i. you heard that I fainted in the shower. Asked about whether she received a lump from hitting her head, she replies:
b. [Yeah.] . (43) ?i. ... yeah.
c. [Bob said you fainted in the shower.] b. .. yeah.
d. [Right.] c. ... it’s just about going away now,
e. ... okay. d. .. I had it about two weeks.
f. ... well, e. ... anyway,
g. .. tha—t in itself was scary cause I never fainted before. f. .. so I was sort of nervous about that,
Other writers have characterized the function of well in other ways. Schiffrin, , g. .. for a day or two,
(1987: 102-127), for example, finds that it marks the following material as a h. .. and then I forgot about it.
‘response,’ while Shourup (1985: 64-93) finds it to be an indicator that the
speaker ‘“is engaged in private thinking.” (of) course. This connective, often simply course, has the paradoxical
function of introducing an idea that is contrary to expectations in an expected
then. Sometimes then as a connective straightforwardly signals temporal way:
progression. The event verbalized in (39) simply followed a series of other (44) a. I thought it was interesting.
events in time: b. .. course everybody else grumbled about it.
(39) ... then he decided he knew what she was trying to say.
ob. As a connective oh functions similarly to to be sure: “what follows is
Sometimes its function is more like in addition:
true, but it does not detract from the point I just made.” The following
(40) a. ... so the ... situation is constructed to get us ... offers .. and speaker had said she had never been involved in plagiarizing:
requests.
(45) a. ... oh I handed in somebody’s ... paper,
b. ... between the kids.
b. but that was a little bit different.
c. ... then .. we also have .. two kinds of warnings.
We'have followed, then, a progression of connectives from the maximally
In these data then occurs most often with a preceding and. The following
general and with its relatives but and or, associated most often with the con­
example shows two occurrences of and then, the first after a comma and the
tinuation signaled by a comma intonation, to a set of more specialized connec­
second after a period. The greater strength of the period boundary between
tives occurring most often after the closure signaled by period intonation.
(c) and (d) is evident; at this point there is a major shift in time:
Conspicuous among the latter are so, then, I mean, like, well, anyway, of
(41) a. .. so I was sort of nervous about that, course, and oh. Common to these last connectives is the signaling of some
b. .. for a day or two, kind of new beginning in the information flow.
c. .. and then I forgot about it.
d. .. and then the next week, Linking with ‘subordinating’ connectives
e. . . I woke up with this headache.
In traditional terms the kind of linking discussed in the last section, so far
anyway. The function of anyway to signal a return to the main topic after as it involves clauses, would be regarded as the linking of two clauses whose
a digression is well known. After a long digression the speaker of (38) above
18 WALLACE CHAFE
status is in some sense equal. Hence the term ‘coordination.’ There are other
examples of clause-linking in which one clause would traditionally be
regarded as a ‘main’ clause and the other as ‘subordinate’ to it. A recent arti­
cle by Haiman ^nd Thompson (1984) has called attention to the incoherent
nature of the various phenomena traditionally associated with subordination,
suggesting that the concept be abandoned as failing to embrace any unified set
of observations.
I want to amplify that point by suggesting that the clause-linking connec­
tives that might be thought typical of ‘stibordinating conjunctions’ raise seri­
ous questions as to what subordination might mean, at least with respect to
spoken English. I am referring here to connectives like because, when, if, so
that, although, before, since, where, every time, and at which point, which hap­
pen to be those present in the data before us. The following example shows
how a linkage of this kind is apt to occur in conversation:
(46) a. ... there’re two kids,
b. ... who do it at the same time.
c. ... so they have to share.
d. ... cause there aren’t enough markers.
e. ... and that means they have to make requests for markers.
This excerpt is interesting because of the variety of linkages it illustrates. The
relative clause in (b) is a type to which we will return below. The so in (c) and
the and in (e) illustrate the ‘coordinate’ type already discussed.^ It is the rela­
tion between (c) and (d) that illustrates the class of connectives before us now.
‘(Be)cause’ signals a relatively specific relation between the clause it
introduces and some other clause: whatever is verbalized in this clause is the
‘cause’ of (or at least gives evidence for) whatever is verbalized in the other
clause. But it is not clear why (d) should be considered ‘subordinate’ to any
greater degree than the other clauses in this sequence. The one clause here
that might possibly be regarded as ‘independent’ is (a), but the fact that the
presentative ’there’ construction in (a) anticipates a following relative clause
casts doubt on its complete independence as well. What we have here is a
sequence of clauses, each linked in some way to one or more other clauses.
Perhaps the only property of (d) that is special is the fact that a clause
introduced by ‘(be)cause’ may sometimes precede rather than follow the
clause to which it is linked:
(47) a. because there aren’t enough markers,
b. they have to share.
LINKING INTONATION UNITS 19
This concocted example is the first we have seen with an anticipatory linkage
expressed at the beginning of the first of two clauses, rather than between the
linked clauses. Barring a change of mind on the part of the speaker, the first
clause can then only end in a comma intonation, not a period, since it has
already been estabhshed that another clause will follow. Apparently it is this
capacity for what might be called bidirectional linking that distinguishes these
‘subordinate’ clauses from those discussed earlier. Clauses like the following
imply only backwards linking:
(46c) so they have to share.
(46e) and that means they have to make requests for markers,
But those of the ‘subordinate’ type may be linked either to what precedes or
to what follows:
(46d) or (47a) (be)cause there aren’t enough markers.
For speakers, however, this is not a balanced choice. In spoken Enghsh back­
ward linking of the type illustrated by (46d) is the preferred type. Of all the
occurrences of ‘subordination’ in the data before us, 61% involve backward
linking, and 39% forward linking
Although, as just mentioned, forward linking virtually requires a comma
intonation at the end of the first clause, backward linking has no such require­
ment. Among such examples in these data, the proportions of comma and
period intonations at the end of the first clause are approximately equal. The
following three examples with because, when, and i/all show a comma intona­
tion at the end of the first clause, evidence that the linked clause was already
anticipated:
(48) a. ... you know so I can understand objections to ... people bring­
ing in babies,
b. .. because it just doesn’t work.
(49) a. so it doesn’t fall off,
b. ... when we don’t want it to.
(50) a. ... it’s incomprehensible,
b. if you don’t know it already.
The following examples are parallel, except that the first clause ends with a
period, suggesting that the linked clause was conceived subsequently and
more independently:
20 WALLACE CHAFE
(51) a. ... a friend of hi a— flute .. student of his called up and said she
can’t come to her lesson.
b. ... becau—se ... she’s sick.
(52) a. ... I went to the doctor after the first one.
b. .J. when I fainted.
(53) a. ... so .. the purpose of the course is to— CTeate something
like that. ^ (58) b. ... and I was sort of ... en .. disentangling my hair .. from the
b. ... if that’s possible. ^ waste paper basket,
Among the postposed or backward-linking clauses, ‘(be)cause’ is by.far
the most common connective in^hese data, accounting for 50% of the total
cases of this type. Among the less common preposed or forward linking
clauses, ‘i f is the most common connective, accounting for 44% of the cases.
The following examples with if, when, and because are arranged in order of
descending frequency:
(54) a. .. if I were to start over,
b. ... uh ... I would .. I would take a .. uh — .. at least ... six
months maybe a year’s leave of absence.
(55) a. ... when they ... see that this i s ... happening,
b. ... they are engaged in conversation.
(56) a. ... uh because I’m an .. adviser,
b. I have to be on campus in the afternoons too.
In short, we have found no clear reason why linkages expressed by con­
nectives like because, when, and if should be regarded as any more ‘subordi­
nate’ than clauses introduced by and, except for the fact that they may antici­
pate as well as follow the clause to which they are explicitly linked. We might
then think of them as bidirectional connectives, contrasting in at least that
respect with the connectives previously discussed.
But we cannot leave this discussion of ‘subordination’ without giving
some attention to relative clauses, as already exemplified in (46b) above. Our
concern here is only with relative clauses that constitute a separate int'onation
unit. Some of them would be separated with commas in writing, and would be
classed in the traditional ‘nonrestrictive’ or ‘appositive’ function, expressing
some kind of ‘aside.’ But most of them carry forward the flow of information
on the main track of the discourse. All of them have in common the fact that
they say something additional about a referent already introduced and present
in the preceding intonation unit. This kind of linkage is relatively rare in these
LINKING INTONATION UNITS 21
data, constituting only 3.5% of all the linkages examined.
The most common of the relative pronouns in this sample is which. It
occurs with approximately equal frequency after a comma and after a period.
Some of the resulting clauses add information about a nominal referent:
(57) a. ... and they start the task,
b. ... uh— which involves coloring.
b. ... which is .. under there.
Others add information about an idea expressed as an entire predicate or
dause:
(59) ‘, a. ... the verb may not be a verb to the kid,
b. which of course is a ... a good point,
(60) a. ... and uh .. so everybody cracked up.
b. which was my intention.
Somewhat less common are the relative pronouns that and who. In these
data, that always refers to a nonhuman entity established by a previous nomi­
nal referent:
(6J) a. .. I’m going to make a proposal tomorrow.
b. ... uh— ... tha—t ... probably will go through.
(62) a. and they send a ... nice .. typed .. letter,
b. ... that’s ... you know.
c. ... ve—ry ... well done,
Wio also always refers to a nominal referent, but of course a human one:
(63) a. ... I noticed there was a gu—y.
b. ... who walked by.
(64) a. .. they hope to get somebody else,
b. .. who’s lined up for it.
It can be seen from these examples that the function of intonationally
separate relative clauses in spoken English is to provide a hnkage in which a
referent established in one clause is repeated in the relative pronoim that
introduces the next. The relative pronoun is essentially a one-word substitute
for linkages of the type and he, and it, etc.
22 WALLACE CHAFE
Focusing on a connective
We began by looking at cases in which the linkage between two intona­
tion units is not overtly signaled at all. Having seen how linkage-can be most
simply expressed through comma intonation, we examined several varietieSof
explicit connective words. It is appropriate now to end -the discussion with
cases that are farthest from where we began: c^ es in which the hnkage itself
is given full attention. Here the link is verbalized not with a connective that is
only one element in a larger intonation unit, but with a connective that
occupies a complete intonation unit by itself. A speaker, that is, may focus for
a moment entirely on the linkage.
To do this is not especially common in spoken English. Only about 1.5%
of the linkages examined separate off the connective itself as a separate into­
nation unit. The connective most often treated in this way is well, which func­
tions in part as a pause filler (see also example (38) above):
(65) a. [But it was an apartment building?]
b. .. well,
c. ... I lived in a totally farm neighborhood but,
d. ... on the grounds of this one farmhouse,
e. she’d buUt this little apartment house.
The next most common is anyway (see also example (42) above):
(66) a. ... it’s just about going away now,’
b. . . I had it about two weeks.
c. ... anyway,
d. .. so I was sort of nervous about that,
e. .. for a day or two,
Also occurring as complete intonation units are so, but, now, and actually.
Complete intonation units are also formed of the sequences well anyway and
well also I mean.
A comparison with written English
One of my purposes in constructing this tentative picture of linkages in
spoken English has been to show their relatively simple nature as compared
with those that are most often discussed by linguists, usually stemming from
memories (and occasionally observations) of what written, not spoken Eng­
lish, is like. Several factors may be responsible for the differences between
LINKING INTONATION UNITS 23
spoken and written linkages. Speakers, as opposed to writers, have little time
to devote to making the linkages between intonation units explicit. Verbaliz­
ing ideas on the run, they are too busy expressing them as conversationally
successful intonation units to add the time necessary to elaborate the connec­
tions between them. Both the presence of a directly shared context and the
ability to supplement words with prosody and gestures help to make the con­
nections between ideas more apparent. For writers, the absence of a directly
shared context and the lack of prosodic and gestural resources make it more
imperative to be explicit about connections between ideas.
Ih other words, both the advantages and the deficits of spoken language
work together to minimize the use of elaborate linking devices, while the com­
plementary advantages and deficits of written language favor their elabora­
tion. As'a result, spoken language tends to favor the devices discussed earliest
in this chapter — linking with comma intonation and the ‘easy’ connectives
such as and — whereas written language tends to favor those discussed later
— the more specific and bidirectional connectives, relative pronouns, and the
treatment of connectives themselves as separate punctuation units. It is par­
ticularly instructive to see how writers exploit this last device, used only rarely
by speakers.
As spoken language naturally divides itself into intonation units, written
language offers an analogous segmentation into ‘punctuation units,’ the
stretches of language that occur between punctuation marks. Although the
analogy is by no means perfect, there is a strong tendency in English writing
for punctuation units to mirror the intonation units of speech.^ That being the
case, it is of interest to examine the use of connectives as independent punctu­
ation units in writing. The following remarks are based on comparably sized
, samples of academic writing obtained from the same eleven individuals whose
spoken language was discussed above. I should stress that these remarks apply
to academic writing; the extent to which they are valid for other written
genres is an open question.
The striking finding is that such writing fosters not only the much more
frequent use of connectives as entire punctuation units, but also the use in this
way of a much larger variety of connectives. By far the most frequent in these
data are for example, however, and thus:
(67) a. the more target properties an item contained,
b. the more likely it would be to be recalled.
c. For example.
24 WALLACE CHAFE
d. a subject might initially use each property separately to try to
recall and,
e. then,
(68) a. Cjne contrary finding was that they found the subjects’ time to
search the word lists did not correlate with the number”of
items recalled.
b. However,
c. the measures were total time ^nd total recall,
(69) a. the corresponding expected numbers of positive decisions are
0.0, 0.33, 1.0, and 3.0.
b. Thus,
c. if the number of decisions improves memorability only when a
property of the word matches one of the target properties.
Whereas the different connectives treated in this way in the spoken sam­
ple are limited to about 6, those found in the samples of academic writing
number at least 35. A sample from among them, in addition to those illus­
trated above, includes again, also, apparently, as a result, as such, at least,
e.g., finally, for these reasons, for the most part, for one thing, furthermore,
i.e., if so, in fact, in particular, in addition, instead, later, more exactly, more
recently, moreover, nevertheless, of course, rather, second, similarly, so, speci­
fically, that is, then, and therefore. Thus (academic) writing fosters both a
focusing on connectives themselves, and the invention and use of a great vari­
ety of such connectives.
Conclusion
We have seen that the flow of ideas is manifested in spoken language in
the spurts of language I have been calling intonation units. It is important to
study the linkages between intonation units as a way of understanding the
associations that may exist between ideas. Since something like 70% of the
intonation units in conversational speech are complete single clauses (and
many of the others are clause fi-agments), there is good reason to think that
the clause is the typical way of verbalizing an idea. Clause linkage is the pre­
dominant type of intonation unit linkage.
The limiting case of linkage is that in which the first unit ends with a
period intonation and the next begins with no connective word. There are at
least three distinguishable cases of this type: after-thoughts, wheel-spinning,
LINKING INTONATION UNITS 25
and episode boundaries. In contrast, a comma intonation at the end of the
first unit signals the speaker’s intention at that point to continue with some­
thing else.
'Among the explicit connective words, by far the most common in spoken
English is and, signaling nothing more than that the idea expressed in the sec­
ond unit moves forward in some way from the idea expressed in the first. The
less common, more specific cousins of and are but and or. These three are
commonly associated with a comma intonation. There are a variety of other
coimectives like so, I mean, like, well, then, anyway, of course, and oh that are
more apt to occur after the closure expressed by a period intonation.
Somewhat different in nature are connectives like because, when, and if,
whose major distinguishing property appears to be their ability to signal a lin­
kage with either the preceding or the following clause. It is difficult in spoken
language to find any clear content for the notion that they express ‘subordina­
tion.’
Relative pronouns provide another kind of linkage, combining in a single
word both the fact of the linkage and the repetition of a referent that
appeared in the preceding clause. Most relative clauses in spoken English lead
into new ideas in much the same way as linkages like and he or and it.
Finally, at the opposite extreme from the minimal linkages first discus­
sed, there may be a focusing on the connective itself as an independent into­
nation unit. This device is relatively rare in spoken English, but it comes into
its own in writing, where punctuation units consisting of nothing more than a
connective (like the finally at the beginning of this paragraph) are common
and diverse.
In concentrating on linking by means of intonation and connectives, I
have ignored various other ways in which ties between intonation units may
be expressed: for example, through anaphoric and lexical devices like those
mentioned in passing in footnote 4 (cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976). The entire
subject needs more thorough treatment. I hope, however, that I have at least
shown that focusing such research on real spoken English is likely to be fruit­
ful, and to provide some surprises.
NOTES
1. Compare, among others, the ‘information units’ of Halliday (1967), the ‘information blocks’
of Grimes (1975), the ‘tone units’ of Crystal (1975), the ‘idea units’ of Kroll (1977), the
‘lines’ of Hymes (1981), and in fact the ‘clauses’ of Pawley and Syder (1983).
 WALLACE CHAFE
26
2. The sequences of two, three, and four dots indicate pauses. Two-dot pauses are less than
half a second in length, three-dot pauses between one-half and two seconds, and four-dot
pauses longer than two seconds. It may be noted that pauses also occur within intonation
units (Chafe, 1980a). A dash, as in ‘uh— ,’ indicates a lengthening of the preceding segment.
Commas and periods show intonational cadences in a way to be described.
3. The study was Sponsored by Grant G-80-0125 from the National Institute of Education,j5rith
additional assistance from the Sloan Foundation grant in support of cognitive science studies
at the University of California at Berkeley. I am grateful for the collaboration of Jane
Danielewicz, Pamela Downing, Tanya Renner, and Knudirambrecht. Some related results
of this study have been reported in Chafe (1982.afld 1985), and Chafe and Danielewicz
(1987).
4. Worth noting is the fact that the linkage>etween (d) and (e) is strengthened through the use
in (e) of the pronoun ‘that,’ referring to the idea expressed in (d), as well as through the verb
‘means,’ which goes further in specifying the relation that (e) bears to (d).
5. “ See now Chafe, 1987b.
REFERENCES
Chafe, Wallace. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: Uni­
versity of Chicago Press.
---- . 1 9 7 9 . “’The flow of thought and the flow of language.” In: Discourse and
Syntax, T. Given (ed.), New York: Academic Press.
---- . 1980a. “Some reasons for hesitating.” In: Temporal Variables in Speech,
H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach (eds.). The Hague: Mouton. Reprinted in
Perspectives on Silence, D.Tannen and M.Saville-Troike (eds.), Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
---- . 1980b. “The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narra­
tive.” In: The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of
Narrative Production, Wallace Chafe (ed.), Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
---- . 1982. “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral litera­
ture”. In: Spoken and Written Language: exploring orality and literacy,
Deborah Tannen (ed.), Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
---- . 1985. “Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking
and writing.“ In: Literacy, Language, and Learning: the Nature and Conse­
quences of Reading and Writing, David R.Olson, Nancy Torrance, and
Angela Hildyard (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
---- . 1987a. “Cognitive constraints on information flow.” In: Coherence and
Grounding in Discourse, Russell Tomlin (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benja-
nuns.
LINKING INTONATION UNITS 27
— . 1987b. “Punctuation and the prosody of written language.” Technical
Report No. 11. Center for the Study of Writing, University of California,
Berkeley.
— .,and Jane Danielewicz. 1987. “Properties of spoken and written lan­
guage.” In: Comprehending Oral and Written Language, Rosalind
Horowitz and S.J.Samuels (eds.). New York: Academic Press.
Crystal, David. 1975. The English Tone of Voice. London: St.Martin.
Gossen, Gary H. 1984. Chamulas in the World of the Sun. Time and Space in
a Maya Oral Tradition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Haiman, John, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. “‘Subordination’ in universal
grammar.” In: Proceedings o f the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, Claudia Brugman and Monica Macaulay (eds.).
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English.
London: Longman.
Hymes, Dell. 1981. In Vain 1 Tried to Tell You. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Kroll, Barbara. 1977. “Combining ideas in written and spoken English: a look
at subordination and coordination”. In: Discourse across Time and Space,
Elinor O.Keenan and Tina L.Bennett (eds.). Southern California Occa­
sional Papers in Linguistics 5.
McLendon, Sally. “Eastern Porno oratory.” Paper presented at American
Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, 1985. Ms.
Mithun, Marianne. “Contrasting bilingual narrative strategies.” Paper pre­
sented at American Anthropological Association annual meeting, 1985.
Ms-.
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances H. Syder. 1983. “Natural selection in syntax:
notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary gram­
mar.” Journal of Pragmatics 7: 551-579.
Sasse, Hans-Jiirgen. “The thetic/categorical distinction revisited.” Ms.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­
sity Press.
Schourup, Lawrence C. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Con­
versation. New York: Garland.
Svartvik, Jan. 1980. “Well in conversation.” In: Studies in English Linguistics:
for Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan
Svartvik (eds.), London: Longman.