1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Temporality in Interaction
  4. Chapter

Ephemeral Grammar

At the far end of emergence

image of Ephemeral Grammar

Drawing on the theoretical and methodological approach of Conversation Analysis (CA) and aiming to contribute to research on Emergent Grammar (e.g., Hopper 1987, 2011; Bybee and Hopper 2001) and sequentially specific grammar (Schegloff 1996; Fox 1994; Thompson et al. to appear), this chapter takes up temporality in talk-in-interaction by addressing a fundamental assumption in the theory of emergent grammar: the temporal directionality of emergence as moving toward sedimentation. The close analysis of an extended turn at talk compels us to consider provisional and emergent form as possible without movement toward sedimentation beyond the local context.

References

  1. Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder
    2011 “Construction: Emergent or Emerging?” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 1–21. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolden, Galina
    2009 “Implementing Incipient Actions: The Discourse Marker ‘so’ in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (5): 974–98. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper
    (eds) 2001 Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Tsuyoshi Ono
    2007 “‘Incrementing’ in Conversation: A comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics55: 513–552. doi: 10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  5. Ford, Cecilia E
    2004 “Contingency and Units in Interaction.” Discourse Studies6 (1): 27–52. doi: 10.1177/1461445604039438
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039438 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2008 Women Speaking Up: Getting and Using the Floor in Workplace Meetings. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230582187
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582187 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ford, Cecilia E. and Barbara A. Fox
    2010 “Multiple Practices for Constructing Laughables.” InProsody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth , Elizabeth Reber , and Margret Selting , 339–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.23.27for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.27for [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford, Cecilia E. , Barbara A. Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson
    2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford , Barbara Fox , and Sandra Thompson . 14–38. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ford, Cecilia E. , Barbara Fox , and Sandra Thompson
    2013 “Units and/or Action Trajectories: The Language of Grammatical Categories and the Language of Social Action.” InUnits of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoff Raymond , 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.25.02for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  10. Ford, Cecilia E. and Trini Stickle
    2012 “Securing Recipiency in Workplace Meetings: Multimodal Practices.” Discourse Studies14 (1): 11–30. doi: 10.1177/1461445611427213
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427213 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fox, Barbara A
    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]
  12. Fox, Barbara A. , Fay Wouk , Makoto Hayashi , et al.
    2009 “A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of the Site of Initiation in Same Turn Self-repair.” InComparative Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 60–103. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, Barbara A. and Fay Wouk
    . i.pr. A Cross-Linguistic Study of Self-Repair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1979 “Footing.” Semiotica25: 1–29. doi: 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 97–121. New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 1984 “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 225–246. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 1996 “Transparent Vision.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel Schegloff , and Sandra Thompson , 370–404. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1990 He-said-she-said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    2004 “Participation.” InA Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Alessandro Duranti . 222–244. Maldan, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Günthner, Susanne
    2011 “Between Emergence and Sedimentation: Projecting Constructions in German Interactions.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 156–185. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.156
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.156 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, Paul
    1987 “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society13: 139–157. doi: 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1992 “Emergence of Grammar.” InInternational Encyclopedia of Linguistics Vol. I, ed. by William Bright , 364–367. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011 “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 22–45. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.22
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  25. Houtkoop, Hanneke and Harrie Mazeland
    1985 “Turns and Discourse Units in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics9: 595–619. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90055‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90055-4 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jefferson, Gail
    1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein , 219–248. New York: Academic. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2004 “A Note on Laughter in ‘Male-Female’ Interaction.” Discourse Studies6: 117–133. doi: 10.1177/1461445604039445
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039445 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lerner, Gene
    2013 “On the Place of Hesitating in Delicate Formulations: A Turn-Constructional Infrastructure for Collaborative Indiscretion.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi , Geoff Raymond , and Jack Sidnell , 95–134. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lerner, Gene and Celia Kitzinger
    2007 Extraction and Aggregation in the Repair of Individual and Collective Self-Reference.Research on Language and Social Interaction9: 526–557.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Maynard, Douglas W
    2013 “Defensive Mechanisms: I-mean prefaced Utterances in Complaint and other Conversational Sequences.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi , Geoff Raymond , and Jack Sidnell , 198–233. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mondada, Lorenza
    2007 “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible Next Speakers.” Discourse Studies9 (2): 194–225. doi: 10.1177/1461445607075346
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2011 “Emergent Grammar for all Practical Purposes: The On-Line Formatting of Left and Right Dislocations in French Conversation.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 45–87. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.45 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features found in Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies9 (2): 219–229. doi: 10.1007/BF00148128
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  35. Raymond, Geoff
    2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone ‘so’ in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 185–218. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1979 “The Relevance of Repair to a Syntax-for-conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics. Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón , 261–286. New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 1980 “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’” Sociological Inquiry50: 104–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  39. 1981 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other Things that come between Sentences.” InGeorgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, ed. by Deborah Tannen , 71–93. Georgetown, DC: Georgetown UP.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly50 (2): 101–114. doi: 10.2307/2786745
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1991 “Issues of Relevance for Discourse Analysis: Contingency in Action, Interaction, and Co-Participant Context.” InComputational and Conversational Discourse, ed. by Eduard Hovy and Donia Scott , 3–35. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel Schegloff , and Sandra Thompson . 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, Emanuel , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language53 (2): 361–82. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  45. Scheibman, J
    2002 Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  47. Selting, Margret
     1996 “Prosody as an Activity-Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The case of so-called ‘Astonished’ Questions in Repair Initiation.” InProsody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting , 231–270. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
  48. Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  49. Thomas-Ružić, Maria
    1998 Language and Activity: We, You and I in Instructional Talk. University of Colorado, Boulder: PhD Dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Thompson, Sandra A. , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Barbara Fox
    . i.pr.: Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Walker, Gareth
    2004 “On some Interactional and Phonetic Properties of Increments to Turns in Talk-in-interaction.” InSound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford , 147–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.62.10wal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.10wal [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder
    2011 “Construction: Emergent or Emerging?” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 1–21. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolden, Galina
    2009 “Implementing Incipient Actions: The Discourse Marker ‘so’ in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (5): 974–98. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper
    (eds) 2001 Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Tsuyoshi Ono
    2007 “‘Incrementing’ in Conversation: A comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics55: 513–552. doi: 10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  5. Ford, Cecilia E
    2004 “Contingency and Units in Interaction.” Discourse Studies6 (1): 27–52. doi: 10.1177/1461445604039438
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039438 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2008 Women Speaking Up: Getting and Using the Floor in Workplace Meetings. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230582187
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582187 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ford, Cecilia E. and Barbara A. Fox
    2010 “Multiple Practices for Constructing Laughables.” InProsody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth , Elizabeth Reber , and Margret Selting , 339–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.23.27for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.27for [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford, Cecilia E. , Barbara A. Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson
    2002 “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford , Barbara Fox , and Sandra Thompson . 14–38. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ford, Cecilia E. , Barbara Fox , and Sandra Thompson
    2013 “Units and/or Action Trajectories: The Language of Grammatical Categories and the Language of Social Action.” InUnits of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoff Raymond , 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.25.02for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  10. Ford, Cecilia E. and Trini Stickle
    2012 “Securing Recipiency in Workplace Meetings: Multimodal Practices.” Discourse Studies14 (1): 11–30. doi: 10.1177/1461445611427213
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427213 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fox, Barbara A
    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]
  12. Fox, Barbara A. , Fay Wouk , Makoto Hayashi , et al.
    2009 “A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of the Site of Initiation in Same Turn Self-repair.” InComparative Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 60–103. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, Barbara A. and Fay Wouk
    . i.pr. A Cross-Linguistic Study of Self-Repair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1979 “Footing.” Semiotica25: 1–29. doi: 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 97–121. New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 1984 “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 225–246. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 1996 “Transparent Vision.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel Schegloff , and Sandra Thompson , 370–404. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1990 He-said-she-said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    2004 “Participation.” InA Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Alessandro Duranti . 222–244. Maldan, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Günthner, Susanne
    2011 “Between Emergence and Sedimentation: Projecting Constructions in German Interactions.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 156–185. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.156
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.156 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, Paul
    1987 “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society13: 139–157. doi: 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1992 “Emergence of Grammar.” InInternational Encyclopedia of Linguistics Vol. I, ed. by William Bright , 364–367. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011 “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 22–45. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.22
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  25. Houtkoop, Hanneke and Harrie Mazeland
    1985 “Turns and Discourse Units in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics9: 595–619. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90055‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90055-4 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jefferson, Gail
    1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein , 219–248. New York: Academic. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2004 “A Note on Laughter in ‘Male-Female’ Interaction.” Discourse Studies6: 117–133. doi: 10.1177/1461445604039445
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039445 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lerner, Gene
    2013 “On the Place of Hesitating in Delicate Formulations: A Turn-Constructional Infrastructure for Collaborative Indiscretion.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi , Geoff Raymond , and Jack Sidnell , 95–134. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lerner, Gene and Celia Kitzinger
    2007 Extraction and Aggregation in the Repair of Individual and Collective Self-Reference.Research on Language and Social Interaction9: 526–557.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Maynard, Douglas W
    2013 “Defensive Mechanisms: I-mean prefaced Utterances in Complaint and other Conversational Sequences.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi , Geoff Raymond , and Jack Sidnell , 198–233. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mondada, Lorenza
    2007 “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible Next Speakers.” Discourse Studies9 (2): 194–225. doi: 10.1177/1461445607075346
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2011 “Emergent Grammar for all Practical Purposes: The On-Line Formatting of Left and Right Dislocations in French Conversation.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder , 45–87. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.45 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features found in Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies9 (2): 219–229. doi: 10.1007/BF00148128
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  35. Raymond, Geoff
    2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone ‘so’ in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 185–218. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1979 “The Relevance of Repair to a Syntax-for-conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics. Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón , 261–286. New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 1980 “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’” Sociological Inquiry50: 104–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  39. 1981 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other Things that come between Sentences.” InGeorgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, ed. by Deborah Tannen , 71–93. Georgetown, DC: Georgetown UP.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly50 (2): 101–114. doi: 10.2307/2786745
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1991 “Issues of Relevance for Discourse Analysis: Contingency in Action, Interaction, and Co-Participant Context.” InComputational and Conversational Discourse, ed. by Eduard Hovy and Donia Scott , 3–35. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel Schegloff , and Sandra Thompson . 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, Emanuel , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language53 (2): 361–82. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  45. Scheibman, J
    2002 Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  47. Selting, Margret
     1996 “Prosody as an Activity-Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The case of so-called ‘Astonished’ Questions in Repair Initiation.” InProsody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting , 231–270. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
  48. Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  49. Thomas-Ružić, Maria
    1998 Language and Activity: We, You and I in Instructional Talk. University of Colorado, Boulder: PhD Dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Thompson, Sandra A. , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Barbara Fox
    . i.pr.: Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Walker, Gareth
    2004 “On some Interactional and Phonetic Properties of Increments to Turns in Talk-in-interaction.” InSound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford , 147–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.62.10wal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.10wal [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027268990-slsi.27.03for
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Figure -contentType:Table -contentType:SupplementaryData
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027268990-slsi.27.03for
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Figure -contentType:Table -contentType:SupplementaryData
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027268990
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