1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Time and Emergence in Grammar

Time and Emergence in Grammar

Dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction

image of Time and Emergence in Grammar
USD
Buy:$149.00 + Taxes

This monograph examines how language contributes to the social coordination of actions in talk-in-interaction. Focusing on a set of frequently used constructions in French (left-dislocation, right-dislocation, topicalization, and hanging topic), the study provides an empirically rich contribution to the understanding of grammar as thoroughly temporal, emergent, and contingent upon its use in social interaction. Based on data from a range of everyday interactions, the authors investigate speakers’ use of these constructions as resources for organizing social interaction, showing how speakers continuously adapt, revise, and extend grammatical trajectories in real time in response to local contingencies. The book is designed to be both informative for the specialized scholar and accessible to the graduate student familiar with conversation analysis and/or interactional linguistics.

References

  1. Allerton, David J
    1996 “Proper names and definite descriptions with the same reference: A pragmatic choice for language users.” Journal of Pragmatics25: 621-633. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00103‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00103-0 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altmann, Hans
    1981 Formen der Herausstellung im Deutschen. Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111635286
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111635286 [Google Scholar]
  3. Antaki, Charles , Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke and Rapley, Mark
    2000 “‘Brilliant. Next question...’: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33 (3): 235-262. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3303_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3303_1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Apothéloz, Denis
    1997 “Les dislocations à gauche et à droite dans la construction des schématisations.” InLogique, discours et pensée, Alain Berrendonner and Denis Miéville (eds), 183-217. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Apothéloz, Denis and Grobet, Anne
    2005 “Appendices dans le discours: aspects syntaxiques, prosodiques et pragmatiques.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique41: 95-126.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Apothéloz, Denis and Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2003 “Nouvelles perspectives sur la référence: des approches informationnelles aux approches interactionnelles.” Verbum25 (2): 109-136.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ariel, Mira
    1990 Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Ashby, William J
    1988 “The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and right-dislocations in French.” Lingua75 (2-3): 203-229. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(88)90032‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(88)90032-0 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1994 “An acoustic profile of right-dislocations in French.” Journal of French Language Studies4 (2): 127-145. doi: 10.1017/S0959269500002192
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500002192 [Google Scholar]
  10. Auer, Peter
    1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze. Rechtsexpansionen im deutschen Einfachsatz.” Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik19: 139-157. doi: 10.1515/zfgl.1991.19.2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.1991.19.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  11. 1992 “Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization.” InThe Contextualization of Language, Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio (eds), 1-38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.22.03aue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.03aue [Google Scholar]
  12. 1996a “On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations.” InProsody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting (eds), 57-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1996b “The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position.” Pragmatics6 (3), 295-323. doi: 10.1075/prag.6.3.03aue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.03aue [Google Scholar]
  14. 1998 “Zwischen Parataxe und Hypotaxe: ‘abhängige Hauptsätze’ im Gesprochenen und Geschriebenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik26 (3): 284-307. doi: 10.1515/zfgl.1998.26.3.284
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.1998.26.3.284 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2005a “Projection in interaction and projection in grammar.” Text25 (1): 7-36.10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2005b “Syntax als Prozess.” InLiSt: Interaction and Linguistic Structures41. Retrieved fromwww.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/41/index.htm.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2009 “On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language.” Language Sciences (31): 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 “Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests. Notes on analepsis from the perspective of on-line syntax”. Pragmatics24 (3): 533-560. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue [Google Scholar]
  19. Auer, Peter , Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Müller, Frank
    1999 Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Auer, Peter and Günthner, Susanne
    2003 “Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung?” InLiSt: Interaction and Linguistic Structures38. Retrieved fromwww.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/38/index.htm.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan
    2011 (eds). Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080 [Google Scholar]
  22. Auer, Peter and Lindström, Jan
    2015 “Left/right asymmetries and the grammar of pre- and post-positioning in German and Swedish talk-in-interaction.” InList56.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Avanzi, Mathieu
    2011 “La dislocation à gauche en français parlé: étude instrumentale.” Le français moderne74 (2): 157-175.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Bally, Charles
    1944 Linguistique générale et linguistique française (2nd ed.). Bern: Francke.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 1963 Traité de stylistique française (Vol. 1, 4th ed.). Genève: Georg.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Barnes, Betsy K
    1985 The Pragmatics of Left Detachment in Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.vi.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vi.3 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1995 “Discourse particles in French conversation: (eh) ben, bon, and enfin”. The French Review68 (5): 813-821.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar , Reber, Elisabeth and Selting, Margret
    (eds) 2010 Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23 [Google Scholar]
  29. Beckner, Clay and Bybee, Joan
    2009 “A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis.” Language Learning59, Supplement 1: 29-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00534.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00534.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Berrendonner, Alain
    2002 “Les deux syntaxes.” Verbum24 (1-2): 23-36.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2008 “Il est beau, le lavabo: il fait problème, cet intonème.” InL’énonciation dans tous ses états, Merete Birkelund , Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Coco Norén (eds), 669-687. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Berrendonner, Alain and Reichler-Béguelin, Marie-José
    1997 “Left dislocation in French: Varieties, norm and usage”. InTaming the Vernacular: From Dialect to Written Standard Language, Jenny Cheshire and Dieter Stein (eds), 200-217. London/New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Blanche-Benveniste, Claire , Bilger, Mireille , Rouget, Christine and Van den Eynde, Karel
    1990 Le français parlé: études grammaticales. Paris: Editions du CNRS.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Blasco-Dulbecco, Mylène
    1999 Les dislocations en français contemporain: étude syntaxique. Paris: Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2006 “Propositions pour le classement typologique de quelques détachements.” L’information grammaticale, 109, 27-33. doi: 10.2143/IG.109.0.2005788
     https://doi.org/10.2143/IG.109.0.2005788 [Google Scholar]
  36. Blinkenberg, Andréas
    1928 L’ordre des mots en français moderne (Vol. 2). Copenhague: Munksgaard.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Blyth, Carl
    1995 “‘C’est bon ça!’: Conventionalized displays of affect in French.” InSymposium About Language and Society Austin II, Pamela Silberman and Jonathan Loftin (eds), 130-142. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Button, Graham
    1990 “On varieties of closings.” InInteraction Competence, George Psathas (ed.), 93-148. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Button, Graham and Casey, Neil
    1984 “Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 167-190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 1985 “Topic nomination and topic pursuit.” Human Studies8: 3-55. doi: 10.1007/BF00143022
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143022 [Google Scholar]
  41. Bybee, Joan
    2002 “Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure.” InThe Evolution of Language out of Pre-language, Talmy Givón and Bertram F. Malle (eds), 109-134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.53.07byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.07byb [Google Scholar]
  42. 2006 “From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.” Language82 (4): 711-733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  44. Cadierno, Teresa and Eskildsen, Søren, W
    (eds) 2015 Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110378528
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528 [Google Scholar]
  45. Cadiot, Pierre
    1992 “Matching syntax and pragmatics: A typology of topic and topic-related constructions in spoken French.” Linguistics30 (1): 57-88. doi: 10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.57
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.57 [Google Scholar]
  46. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view.” InSubject and Topic. Charles N. Li (ed.), 25-55. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1977 “The movement nature of left dislocation.” Linguistic Inquiry8 (2): 397-412.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Cornish, Francis
    1986 “Anaphoric pronouns: Under linguistic control or signalling particular discourse representations?” Journal of Semantics5: 233-260. doi: 10.1093/jos/5.3.233
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/5.3.233 [Google Scholar]
  50. 1999 Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    1993 English Speech Rhythm: Form and Function in Everyday Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.25 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2011 “Grammaticalization and conversation.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds), 424-437. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Ono, Tsuyoshi
    2007 “‘Incrementing’ in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics17 (4): 513-552. doi: 10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  54. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret
    (eds) 1996 Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2001 “Introducing interactional linguistics.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 1-19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.02cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.02cou [Google Scholar]
  56. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Thompson, Sandra A
    2008 “On assessing situations and events in conversation: ‘Extraposition’ and its relatives.” Discourse Studies10 (4): 443-467. doi: 10.1177/1461445608091882
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608091882 [Google Scholar]
  57. Cowper, Elizabeth A
    1979 “Right-dislocation in Franco-Canadian.” Chicago Linguistic Society15: 70-78.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. de Fornel, Michel
    1988 “Constructions disloquées, mouvement thématique et organisation préférentielle dans la conversation.” Langue française78: 101-123. doi: 10.3406/lfr.1988.4746
     https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1988.4746 [Google Scholar]
  59. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2005 “Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting (eds), 289-317. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.15dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.15dep [Google Scholar]
  60. Deppermann, Arnulf and Günthner, Susanne
    (eds) 2015 Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27 [Google Scholar]
  61. Derrida, Jacques
    1978 Writing and Difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. De Stefani, Elwys
    2005 “Les demandes de définition en français parlé. Aspects grammaticaux et interactionnels.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique41: 147-163.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 2007 “La dislocation à gauche rythmée comme dispositif de clôture séquentielle.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique47: 137-156.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2008 “De la malléabilité des structures syntaxiques dans l'interaction orale: le cas des constructions clivées.” InCongres Mondial de Linguistique Française. Jacques Durand , Benoît Habert and Bernard Laks (eds), 703-720. Paris: Institut de lingusitique française.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 2014 “Establishing joint orientation towards commercial objects in a self-service store.” InInteracting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Maurice Nevile , Pentti Haddington , Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa (eds), 271-293. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.186.12ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.12ste [Google Scholar]
  66. De Stefani, Elwys and Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
    2008 “Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements.” Pragmatics18 (3): 381-406. doi: 10.1075/prag.18.3.02ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.3.02ste [Google Scholar]
  67. Deulofeu, José
    1977 “La syntaxe et les constructions binaires.” Recherches sur le français parlé1: 30-61.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 1979 “Les énoncés à constituant lexical détaché: les limites de l’organisation grammaticale et de l’organisation discursive dans les énoncés.” Recherches sur le français parlé2: 75-109.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 1989 “Les couplages de constructions verbales en français parlé: effet de cohésion discursive ou syntaxe de l’énoncé.” Recherches sur le français parlé9: 111-141.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Diemoz, Federica
    2014 “L’exemple de la Suisse.” InLa langue française dans le monde 2014. Alexandre Wolff (coord.), 153-156. Paris: Éditions Nathan.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Dik, Simon C
    1978 Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Drew, Paul
    1992 “Contested evidence in the courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), 470-520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Drew, Paul and Holt, Elizabeth
    1995 “Idiomatic expressions and their role in the organization of topic transition in conversation.” InIdioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, Martin Everaert , Erik-Jan van der Linden , André Schenk and Rob Schreuder (eds), 117-132. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 1998 “Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation.” Language in Society27: 495-522. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500020200
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020200 [Google Scholar]
  75. Du Bois, John W
    2007 “The stance triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139-182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  76. Duranti, Alessandro and Ochs, Elinor
    1979 “Left-dislocation in Italian conversation.” InDiscourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón (ed.), 377-416. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Duvallon, Outi and Routarinne, Sara
    2005 “Parenthesis as a resource in the grammar of conversation.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting (eds), 45-74. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.05duv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.05duv [Google Scholar]
  78. Ellis, Rod
    2003 Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Erickson, Frederick
    1992 “They know all the lines: Rhythmic organization and contextualization in a conversational listing routine.” InThe Contextualization of Language, Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio (eds), 365-397. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.22.21fre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.21fre [Google Scholar]
  80. Ford, Cecilia E
    1993 Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  81. 2000 “The treatment of contrasts in interaction.” InCause, Condition, Concession, and Contrast: Cognitive and Discursive Perspectives, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann (eds), 283-312. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gryuter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219043.3.283
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  82. 2004 “Contingency and units in interaction.” Discourse Studies6 (1): 27-52. doi: 10.1177/1461445604039438
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039438 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ford, Cecilia E. , Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A
    1996 “Practices in the construction of turns: the ‘TCU’ revisited.” Pragmatics6 (3): 427-454. doi: 10.1075/prag.6.3.07for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.07for [Google Scholar]
  84. 2002a “Introduction.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia E. Ford , Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 3-13. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 2002b “Constituency and the grammar of turn increments.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia E. Ford , Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 14-38. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 2013 “Units or action trajectories? Is the language of grammatical categories the language of social action?” InUnits of Talk – Units of Action, Beatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond (eds), 13-56, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.25.02for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  87. Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A
    1996 “Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns.” InInteraction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 135-184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  88. Fox, Barbara A
    1987 Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511627767
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627767 [Google Scholar]
  89. 1994 “Contextualization, indexicality, and the distributed nature of grammar.” Language Sciences16 (1): 1-37. doi: 10.1016/0388‑0001(94)90016‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(94)90016-7 [Google Scholar]
  90. Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A
    2007 “Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency and the notion of construction.” Studies in Language31: 293-326. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox [Google Scholar]
  91. Fox, Barbara A. , Wouk, Fay , Hayashi, Makoto , Fincke, Steven , Tao, Liang , Sorjonen, Marja-Leena , Laakso, Minna and Flores Hernandez, Wilfrido
    2009 “A cross-linguistic investigation of the site of initiation in same-turn self-repair.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, Jack Sidnell (ed.), 60-103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004 [Google Scholar]
  92. Fradin, Bernard
    1988 “Approche des constructions à détachement: la reprise interne.” Langue Française78: 26-56. doi: 10.3406/lfr.1988.4742
     https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1988.4742 [Google Scholar]
  93. 1990 “Approche des constructions à détachement: inventaire.” Revue Romane25 (1): 3-34.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Furukawa, Naoyo
    1992 “L’élément disloqué à droite: thème postposé ou non?” InEtudes de linguistique romane et slave, Wieslaw Banys , Leszek Bednarczuk and Krzysztof Bogacki (eds), 198-201. Cracovie: Ecole Normale Supérieure, Département d’études romanes.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Galambos, Sylvia J
    1980 “A clarification of the notion of topic. Evidence from popular spoken French.” Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, 125-137. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Geluykens, Ronald
    1987 “Tails (right-dislocations) as a repair mechanism in English conversations.” InGetting One’s Words into Line: On Word Order and Functional Grammar, Jan Nuyts and Georges De Schutter (eds), 119-129. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 1992 From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left-Dislocation in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.1 [Google Scholar]
  99. 1994 The pragmatics of discourse anaphora in English: Evidence from conversational repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110846171
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846171 [Google Scholar]
  100. Givón, Talmy
    1976 “Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement.” InSubject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 149-188. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 1983 “Topic continuity in Discourse: An introduction.” InTopic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, Talmy Givón (ed.), 1-41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3.01giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.01giv [Google Scholar]
  103. 1990 Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700010434
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700010434 [Google Scholar]
  104. 1992 “The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions.” Linguistics30 (1): 5-55. doi: 10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  105. 1995 Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.74
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.74 [Google Scholar]
  106. 2001 Syntax: An Introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700010434
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700010434 [Google Scholar]
  107. Goffman, Erving
    1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 “The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed.), 97-121. New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 1995 “Sentence construction within interaction.” InAspects of Oral Communication, Uta M. Quasthoff (ed.), 198-219. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110879032.198
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879032.198 [Google Scholar]
  111. 2002 “Time in action.” Current Anthropology43 (Supplement): 19-35. doi: 10.1086/339566
     https://doi.org/10.1086/339566 [Google Scholar]
  112. Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1987 “Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessment.” IPRA Papers in Pragmatics1 (1): 1-54. doi: 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
  113. 1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds), 147-190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 2004 “Participation.” InA Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, Alessandro Duranti (ed.), 222-244. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1980 “Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences.” Sociological Inquiry50 (3-4): 303-317. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00024.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00024.x [Google Scholar]
  116. 1990 He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Gossen, Carl Theodor
    1954 Studien zur syntaktischen und stilistischen Hervorhebung im modernen Italienisch. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Gregory, Michelle L. and Michaelis, Laura A
    2001 “Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 1665-1706. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00063‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00063-1 [Google Scholar]
  119. Grobet, Anne
    2002 L’identification des topiques dans les dialogues. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot. doi: 10.3917/dbu.grobe.2002.01
     https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.grobe.2002.01 [Google Scholar]
  120. Grosu, Alexander
    1975 “On the status of positionally-defined constraints in syntax.” Theoretical Linguistics2 (1-3): 159-202. doi: 10.1515/thli.1975.2.1‑3.159
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1975.2.1-3.159 [Google Scholar]
  121. Gundel, Jeanette K
    1974 The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 1975 “Left dislocation.” Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics18: 92-131.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Günthner, Susanne
    2008 “‘Die Sache ist...’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft27 (1): 39-72. doi: 10.1515/ZFSW.2008.003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2008.003 [Google Scholar]
  124. 2011 “Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder (eds), 156-185. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.156
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.156 [Google Scholar]
  125. Günthner, Susanne and Hopper, Paul J
    2010 “Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und im Deutschen.” Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion11: 1-18. Retrieved fromwww.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2010/ga-guenthner.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Guo, Jiansheng
    1999 “The affective function of right dislocation in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics31 (9): 1109-1128. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00094‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00094-0 [Google Scholar]
  127. Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret
    2005 “Introduction.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting (eds), 1-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.02hak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.02hak [Google Scholar]
  128. Halliday, Michael A.K
    1967 “Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2.” Journal of Linguistics3: 199-244. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700016613
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613 [Google Scholar]
  129. Havers, Wilhelm
    1925 “Der sog. ‘Nominativus pendens’.” Indogermanische Forschungen43: 207-257.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Hayashi, Makoto
    2004 “Projection and grammar: Notes on the ‘action-projecting’ use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics36 (8): 1337-1374. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  131. Heritage, John
    2010 “Questioning in medicine.” In‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Functioning of Questions in Institutional Discourse, Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich (eds), 42-68. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 2012 “The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 30-52. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  133. 2013 “Turn-initial position and some of its occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics57: 331-337. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025 [Google Scholar]
  134. Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey
    2005 “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15-38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  135. Heritage, John and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    1994 “Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design.” Language in Society23: 1-29. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500017656
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  136. Hietaranta, Pertti S
    1984 “A functional note on topicalization.” English Studies1: 48-51. doi: 10.1080/00138388408598302
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138388408598302 [Google Scholar]
  137. Holt, Elizabeth and Drew, Paul
    2005 “Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38 (1): 35-61. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2 [Google Scholar]
  138. Hopper, Paul J
    1987 “Emergent Grammar.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 139-157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 1992 “Emergence of grammar.” InInternational Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Vol. 1), William Bright (ed.), 364-367. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  140. 1998 “Emergent Grammar.” InThe New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 155-175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 2001 “Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance?” InApplied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, Martin Pütz , Susanne Niemeier and René Dirven (eds), 109-129. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110866247.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247.109 [Google Scholar]
  142. 2004 “The openness of grammatical constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society40 (2): 153-175.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 2011 “Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder (eds), 22-44. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.22
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  144. Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra, A
    2008 “Projectability and clause combining in interaction.” InCrosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, Ritva Laury (ed.), 99-123. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  145. Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
    2007 “La dislocation à droite comme ressource pour l’alternance des tours de parole: vers une syntaxe incrémentale.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique47: 117-136.
     [Google Scholar]
  147. 2008 “Entre évaluation formulaïque et résumé généralisant: le rôle de la dislocation à droite dans la clôture d’épisodes conversationnels.” Proceedings from the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2008 . Retrieved from doi:10.1051/cmlf08193.
     [Google Scholar]
  148. 2015 La dislocation à droite revisitée: une approche interactionniste. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie and Müller, Gabriele
    2005 “L’implication de la dislocation à droite dans l’organisation interactionnelle.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique41: 127-145.
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie and Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2014 “‘Pivotage’ in French talk-in-interaction: On the emergent nature of [clause-NP-clause] pivots.” Pragmatics24 (3): 593-622. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.3.07hor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.07hor [Google Scholar]
  151. Hyman, Larry M
    1975 “On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo.” InWord Order and Word Order Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 113-147. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Imo, Wolfgang
    2007 Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung: Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110975895
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110975895 [Google Scholar]
  153. Jefferson, Gail
    1972 “Side sequences.” InStudies in Social Interaction, David Sudnow (ed.), 294-338. New York: Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  154. 1978 “Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, Jim Schenkein (ed.), 219-248. New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  155. 1981 “The abominable ‘ne?’ An exploration of post-response pursuit of response.” InDialogforschung, Peter Schröder and Hugo Steger (eds), 53-88. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. 1984 “On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 191-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  157. 1991 “List construction as a task and resource.” InInteractional Competence, George Psathas (ed.), 63-92. New York: Irvington Pubishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. 2004 “A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation.” InConversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, Gene H. Lerner (ed.), 131-167. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.09jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.09jef [Google Scholar]
  159. Jullien, Stéphane
    2014 Syntaxe et dialogue: les configurations syntaxiques impliquant ‘il y a’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Keevallik, Leelo
    2011 “The terms of not knowing.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, Tanya Stivers , Mondada Lorenza and Jakob Steensig (eds), 184-206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009 [Google Scholar]
  161. Knecht, Pierre
    1985 “La Suisse romande”. InLa Suisse aux quatre langues. Robert Schläpfer , et al. (eds), 125-69. Geneva: Éditions Zoé.
     [Google Scholar]
  162. Koshik, Irene
    2002 “Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge display in error correction sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction35 (3): 277-309. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2 [Google Scholar]
  163. Lambrecht, Knud
    1981 Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.ii.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.6 [Google Scholar]
  164. 1987 “On the status of SVO sentences in French discourse.” InCoherence and Grounding in Discourse, Russel S. Tomlin (ed.), 217-261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.11.12lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.12lam [Google Scholar]
  165. 1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  166. 1996a “On the formal and functional relationship between topics and vocatives: Evidence from French.” InConceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Adele Goldberg (ed.), 267-288. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  167. 1996b “Compositional vs. constructional meaning: The case of French comme-N.” InProceedings of the 5th SALT Conference, Teresa Galloway and Mandy Simons (eds), 186-203. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  168. 1998 “Sur la relation formelle et fonctionnelle entre topiques et vocatifs.” Langues1 (1): 34-45.
     [Google Scholar]
  169. 2001 “Dislocation”. InLanguage Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook (Vol. 2), Martin Haspelmath , Ekkehard König , Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1050-1078. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  170. 2004 “On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions: The case of French right-detached comme-N.” InConstruction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), 157-199. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.2.05lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.05lam [Google Scholar]
  171. Langacker, Ronald W
    1974 “Movement rules in functional perspective.” Language50 (4): 630-664. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0016
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0016 [Google Scholar]
  172. 1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  173. Larsen-Freeman, Diane
    2006 “The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English.” Applied Linguistics27 (4): 590-619. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml029
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  174. Larsson, Eva
    1979 La dislocation en français: étude de syntaxe générative, Lund: Gleerup.
     [Google Scholar]
  175. Laury, Ritva and Okamoto, Shigeko
    2011 “Teyuuka and I mean as pragmatic parentheticals in Japanese and English.” InSubordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki (eds), 209-238. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.24.10lau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.10lau [Google Scholar]
  176. Laury, Ritva and Suzuki, Ryoko
    2011 (eds). Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.24
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24 [Google Scholar]
  177. Lehmann, Sabine
    2010 “L’évolution des termes d’adresse à contenu social en ancien et en moyen français.” Special issue ofCORELA: L’interpellation. Retrieved fromcorela.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=1610 doi: 10.4000/corela.1610
     https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.1610 [Google Scholar]
  178. Le Querler, Nicole
    1999 “Dislocation et thématisation en français”. InLa thématisation dans les langues, Claude Guimier (ed.), 263-275. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  179. 2003 “Le nominativus pendens en français.” Cahiers de praxématique40: 149-166.
     [Google Scholar]
  180. Lerner, Gene H
    1991 “On the syntax of sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society20: 441-458. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500016572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  181. 1996 “On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker.” InInteraction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 238-276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005 [Google Scholar]
  182. 2013 “On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: A turn-constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, Makoto Hayashi , Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell (eds), 95-134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  183. Lévi-Strauss, Claude
    1962 La pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon.
     [Google Scholar]
  184. Lindström, Jan
    2006 “Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction39 (1): 81-117. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4 [Google Scholar]
  185. Linell, Per
    1998 Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  186. 2006 “Towards a dialogical linguistics”. In Proceedings of the XII International Bakhtin Conference , Mika Lähteenmäki , Hannele Dufva , Sirpa Leppänen and Piia Varis (eds), 157-172. University of Jyväskylä.
     [Google Scholar]
  187. Linell, Per and Korolija, Natascha
    1997 “Coherence in multy-party conversation: Episodes and contexts in interaction.” InConversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives, Talmy Givón (ed.), 167-205. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.34.07lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.34.07lin [Google Scholar]
  188. Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A
    1976 “Subject and topic: A new typology of language.” InSubject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 458-489. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  189. Luke, Kang-Kwong , Thompson, Sandra A. and Ono, Tsuyoshi
    2012 “Turns and increments: A comparative perspective”. Discourse Processes49 (3-4): 155-162. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110 [Google Scholar]
  190. MacWhinney, Brian
    1987 “The competition model.” InMechanisms of Language Acquisition, Brian MacWhinney (ed.), 249-308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  191. 1998 “Models of the emergence of language.” Annual Review of Psychology49: 199-227. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.199
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.199 [Google Scholar]
  192. Maschler, Yael
    2012 “Emergent projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’).” Studies in Language36 (4): 785-847. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.4.03mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.4.03mas [Google Scholar]
  193. Matthiessen, Christian and Thompson, Sandra A
    1988 “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’.” InClause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 275-329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.18.12mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.12mat [Google Scholar]
  194. Maynard, Douglas W
    1980 “Placement of topic changes in conversation.” Semiotica30 (3-4): 263-290. doi: 10.1515/semi.1980.30.3‑4.263
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.263 [Google Scholar]
  195. Mazeland, Harrie
    2007 “Parenthetical sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1816-1869. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  196. Meshtrie, Rajend
    1997 “A sociolinguistic study of topicalisation phenomena in South African Black English.” InEnglishes Around the World (Vol. 2: Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Australasia), Edgar W. Schneider (ed.), 119-140. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g19.12mes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g19.12mes [Google Scholar]
  197. Michaelis, Laura A. and Lambrecht, Knud
    1996 “Toward a construction-based theory of language: The case of nominal extraposition.” Language76 (2): 219-245.
     [Google Scholar]
  198. Milano, Emma
    2003 Dal centro alla periferia dei processi di topicalizzazione: uno studio variazionale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Heidelberg, Germany. Retrieved fromarchiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/5873/1/tesiEmmaMilano.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  199. Mondada, Lorenza
    1995 “La construction interactionnelle du topic.” Cahiers de l’ILSL7: 111-135.
     [Google Scholar]
  200. . In press. “Turn-initial voilà: reaffirming epistemic authority over the sequence.” InTurn-initial particles across languages, John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds) Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  201. Müller, Gabriele M
    2006 La pseudo-clivée: étude en linguistique interactionnelle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
     [Google Scholar]
  202. Netz, Hadar and Kudar, Ron
    2007 “Three marked theme constructions in spoken English.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 305-335. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  203. Nølke, Henning
    1983 Les adverbes paradigmatisants: fonction et analyse. København: Akademisk Forlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  204. 1997 “Note sur la dislocation du sujet: thématisation ou focalisation?” InLes formes du sens, Georges Kleiber and Martin Riegel (eds), 281-294. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
     [Google Scholar]
  205. 1998 “Il est beau le lavabo, il est laid le bidet: pourquoi disloquer le sujet?” InPrédication, assertion, information, Mats Forsgren , Kerstin Jonasson and Hans Kronning (eds), 385-394. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  206. Norén, Niklas
    2007 Apokoinou in Swedish Talk-in-Interaction: A Family of Methods for Grammatical Construction and the Resolving of Local Communicative Projects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Linköping, Sweden.
     [Google Scholar]
  207. Ochs, Elinor , Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra A
    1996 (eds). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  208. Ono, Tsuyoshi and Thompson, Sandra A
    1995 “What can conversation tell us about syntax?” InAlternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes, Philip W. Davis (ed.), 213-271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.102.07ono
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.102.07ono [Google Scholar]
  209. Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2000 “Anaphora in conversation: Grammatical coding and preference organization.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics7 (1): 183-196.
     [Google Scholar]
  210. 2001 “Dislocation à gauche et organisation interactionnelle.” Marges Linguistiques2: 177-194.
     [Google Scholar]
  211. 2004 “Une approche interactionniste de la grammaire: réflexions autour du codage grammatical de la référence et des topics chez l’apprenant avancé d’une L2.” Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère21: 123-166.
     [Google Scholar]
  212. 2011a “Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction.” InSubordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki (eds), 103-148. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.24.06doe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.06doe [Google Scholar]
  213. 2011b “Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder (eds), 45-87. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.45 [Google Scholar]
  214. 2014 “Disclaiming knowledge? Three sequential positions of ‘je sais pas’ in French talk-in-interaction”. Paper presented at the4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Los Angeles.
     [Google Scholar]
  215. 2015 “Grammar, projection and turn-organization: (il) y a NP ‘there is NP’ as a projector construction in French talk-in-interaction”. InTemporality in Interaction, Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner (eds), 173-199. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.27.06pek
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.06pek [Google Scholar]
  216. Pekarek Doehler, Simona , De Stefani, Elwys and Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
    2011 “The grammar of closings: The use of dislocated constructions as closing initiators in French talk-in-interaction.” Nottingham French Studies50 (2): 51-76. doi: 10.3366/nfs.2011‑2.003
     https://doi.org/10.3366/nfs.2011-2.003 [Google Scholar]
  217. Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
    2013 “The patching-together of pivot patterns in talk-in-interaction: On ‘double dislocations’ in French.” Journal of Pragmatics54: 92-108. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  218. Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Müller, Gabriele M
    2006 “Zur Rolle von Linksherausstellungen bei der interaktiven Konstruktion von Auflistungen: Linksversetzungen und Pseudo-Clefts im gesprochenen Französischen.” InGrammatik und Interaktion, Arnulf Deppermann , Reinhard Fiehler and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds), 245-278. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
     [Google Scholar]
  219. 2007 “Le problème c’est de les distinguer: disloquée à gauche et pseudo-clivée dans la conversation.” InLes linguistiques du détachement, Denis Apothéloz , Bernard Combettes and Franck Neveu (eds), 413-426. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  220. Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Pochon-Berger, Evelyne
    2010 “Le format-tying comme technique de gestion du désaccord: l’exemple des interaction en classe.” InLes reformulations pluri-sémiotiques en contexte de formation, Alain Rabatel (ed.), 117-133. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté.
     [Google Scholar]
  221. Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Stoenica, Ioana M
    2012 “Emergence, temporalité et grammaire-dans-l’interaction: disloquée à gauche et nominativus pendens en français contemporain.” Langue française175 (3): 111-127. doi: 10.3917/lf.175.0111
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.175.0111 [Google Scholar]
  222. Pomerantz, Anita
    1975 Second Assessments: A Study of some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
     [Google Scholar]
  223. 1984 “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  224. Postal, Paul M
    1971 Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  225. Prévost, Sophie
    2003 “Détachement et topicalisation: des niveaux d’analyse différents.” Cahiers de Praxématique40: 97-126.
     [Google Scholar]
  226. Primus, Beatrice
    1993 “Word order and information structure: A performance-based account of topic positions and focus positions.” InSyntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Joachim Jacobs , Arnim von Stechow , Wolfgang Sternefeld and Theo Vennemann (eds), 880-896. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  227. Prince, Ellen F
    1981 “Topicalization, focus movement, and Yiddish movement: A pragmatic differentiation.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 249-264. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  228. 1984 “Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional analysis.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences433: 213-225. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1984.tb14769.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb14769.x [Google Scholar]
  229. 1997 “On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse.” InDirections in Functional Linguistics, Akio Kamio (ed.), 117-143. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.36.08pri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.36.08pri [Google Scholar]
  230. 1998 “On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization.” InThe Limits of Syntax, Peter W. Culicover and Louise McNally (eds), 281-302. San Diego: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  231. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2010 “Prosodic variation in response: The case of type-conforming responses to yes/no interrogatives.” InProsody in Interaction, Elisabeth Reber , Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten (eds), 109-129. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.23.12ray
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.12ray [Google Scholar]
  232. Raymond, Geoffrey and Heritage, John
    2013 “One question after another: Same-turn repair in the formation of yes/no type initiating actions.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, Makoto Hayashi , Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell (eds), 135-171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  233. Reinhart, Tanya
    1981 “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics.” Philosophica27 (1): 53-94.
     [Google Scholar]
  234. Riegel, Martin , Pellat, Jean-Christophe and Rioul, René
    (2009) Grammaire méthodique du français (2nd edition). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  235. Ross, John Robert
    1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. Retrieved frombabel.ucsc.edu/~hank/ross67.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  236. Sabio, Frédéric
    2006 “L’antéposition des compléments en français contemporain: l’exemple des objets directs”. Linguisticae Investigationes29: 173-182. doi: 10.1075/li.29.1.15sab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.29.1.15sab [Google Scholar]
  237. Sacks, Harvey
    1984 “Notes on methodology.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 21-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  238. 1987 “On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.” InTalk and Social Organization, Graham Button and John R.E. Lee (eds), 54-69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  239. 1992 Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  240. Sacks, Harvey and Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1979 “Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed.), 15-21. New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  241. Sacks, Harvey , Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language50 (4): 696-735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  242. Sánchez-Ayala, Ivo
    2003 “Constructions as resources for interaction: Lists in English and Spanish conversation.” Discourse Studies5 (3): 323-349. doi: 10.1177/14614456030053003
     https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030053003 [Google Scholar]
  243. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropologist70: 1075-1095. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  244. 1979 “The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation.” Syntax and Semantics12: 261-286.
     [Google Scholar]
  245. 1984 On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 28-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  246. 1986 “The routine as achievement.” Human Studies9: 111-151. doi: 10.1007/BF00148124
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148124 [Google Scholar]
  247. 1987 “Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization.” InTalk and Social Organization, Graham Button and John R.E. Lee (eds), 70-85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  248. 1998 “Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction.” Language and Speech41 (3-4): 235-263.
     [Google Scholar]
  249. 1990 “On the organization of sequences as a source of ‘coherence’ in talk-in-interaction.” InConversational Organization and its Development, Bruce Dorval (ed.), 51-77. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  250. 1996a “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 52-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  251. 1996b “Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics.” InStudies in Anaphora, Barbara A. Fox (ed.), 437-485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  252. 2000 “On turns’ possible completion, more or less: Increments and trail-offs.” Paper presented at the2000 Annual Conference of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
     [Google Scholar]
  253. 2001 “Conversation analysis: A project in process – ‘increments’.” Paper presented at theLinguistic Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.
     [Google Scholar]
  254. 2007 Sequence Organization. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  255. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Lerner, Gene H
    2009 “Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (2): 91-115. doi: 10.1080/08351810902864511
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511 [Google Scholar]
  256. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , Ochs, Elinor and Thompson, Sandra A
    1996 “Introduction.” InInteraction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 1-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001 [Google Scholar]
  257. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Sacks, Harvey
    1973 “Opening up closings.” Semiotica8: 289-327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  258. Scheibman, Joanne
    2000 “‘I dunno’: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of ‘don’t’ in American English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics32: 105-124. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00032‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00032-6 [Google Scholar]
  259. Schumann, John , Favareau, Donald , Goodwin, Charles , Lee, Namhee , Mikesell, Lisa , Tao, Hongyin , Véronique, Daniel and Wray, Alison
    2006 “Language evolution: What evolved?” Marges Linguistiques11, 167-199.
     [Google Scholar]
  260. Selting, Margret
    1996 “On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation.” Pragmatics6 (3): 371-388. doi: 10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel [Google Scholar]
  261. 2000 “The construction of units in conversational talk.” Language in Society29: 477-517. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500004012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004012 [Google Scholar]
  262. 2001 “Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 229-258. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.12sel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.12sel [Google Scholar]
  263. Simon, Anne-Catherine
    2004 “Analyse de la variation prosodique du français dans les données conversationnelles: propositions théoriques et méthodologiques.” Bulletin de la Phonologie du Français Contemporain3: 99-113.
     [Google Scholar]
  264. Simone, Raffaele
    1997 “Une interprétation diachronique de la dislocation à droite dans les langues romanes.” Langue française115: 48-61. doi: 10.3406/lfr.1997.6221
     https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1997.6221 [Google Scholar]
  265. Simonin, Olivier and Leonarduzzi, Laetitia
    2009 “Dislocations à droite et extrapositions nominales: syntaxe et réalisation(s).” InGrammaire et prosodie (Vol. 2), Daniel Roulland (ed.), 129-149. Rennes: PUR.
     [Google Scholar]
  266. Stark, Elisabeth
    1997 Voranstellungsstrukturen und ‘topic’-Markierung im Französischen. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  267. Stempel, Wolf-Dieter
    1981 “L’amour elle appelle ça – L’amour tu connais pas.” InLogos Semantikos (Vol. 4), Christian Rohrer (ed.), 351-367. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  268. Stivers, Tanya and Robinson, Jeffrey D
    2006 “A preference for progressivity in interaction.” Language in Society35 (3): 367-392. doi: 10.1017/S0047404506060179
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  269. Stivers, Tanya and Rossano, Federico
    2010 “Mobilizing response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (1): 3-31. doi: 10.1080/08351810903471258
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  270. Szczepek Reed, Beatrice
    2011 Analyzing Conversation: An Introduction to Prosody. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1007/978‑1‑137‑04514‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-04514-0 [Google Scholar]
  271. Szczepek Reed, Beatrice and Raymond, Geoffrey
    (eds) 2013 Units of Talk – Units of Action. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25 [Google Scholar]
  272. Tanaka, Hiroko
    1999 Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040010603
     https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040010603 [Google Scholar]
  273. Tesnière, Lucien
    1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  274. Thompson, Sandra A
    2002 “‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account.” Studies in Language26 (1): 125-164. doi: 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  275. Thompson, Sandra A. and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2005 “The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction.” Discourse Studies7 (4-5): 481-505. doi: 10.1177/1461445605054403
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  276. Thompson, Sandra A. , Fox, Barbara A. and Couper-Kuhlen, E
    (eds) 2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  277. Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony J
    1991 “A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English.” InApproaches to Grammaticalization (Vol. 2), Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heinde (eds), 313-329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  278. Tomasello, Michael
    2003 Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  279. Tsui, Amy B.M
    1991 “The pragmatic functions of I don’t know ”. Text11 (4): 607-622.10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607 [Google Scholar]
  280. Vallduví, Enric
    1991 “Focus constructions in Catalan.” InTheoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Christiane Laeufer and Terrell A. Morgan (eds), 457-479. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.74.28val
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.74.28val [Google Scholar]
  281. 1994 “Detachment in Catalan and information packaging.” Journal of Pragmatics22 (6): 573-601. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90031‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90031-0 [Google Scholar]
  282. Vorreiter, Susanne
    2003 “Turn-continuations: Towards a cross-linguistic classification”. Interaction and Linguistic Structures39: 1-26.
     [Google Scholar]
  283. Walker, Gareth
    2001 A phonetic approach to talk-in-interaction. Increments in conversation. MA thesis, University of York, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  284. 2004 “On some interactional and phonetic properties of increments to turns in talk-in-interaction”. InSound Patterns in Interaction, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford (eds), 147-169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.62.10wal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.10wal [Google Scholar]
  285. 2007 “On the design and use of pivots in everyday English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (12): 2217-2243. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  286. Ward, Gregory L
    1985 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  287. Ziv, Yael
    1994 “Left and right dislocations: Discourse functions and anaphora.” Journal of Pragmatics22 (6): 629-645. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90033‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90033-7 [Google Scholar]
  288. Zwicky, Arnold M
    1974 “Hey, whatsyourname!” InPapers from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Michael La Galy , Robert A. Fox and Anthony Bruck (eds), 787-801. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027267986
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027267986
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027267986
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027267986
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error