1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Volume 1, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

In this introductory paper to the inaugural volume of the journal , we raise the question of what a theory of language might look like once we factor time into explanations of regularities in linguistic phenomena. We first present a historical overview that contextualises interactional approaches within the broader field of linguistics, and then focus on temporality as a key dimension of language use in interaction. By doing so, we discuss issues of emergence and its consequences for constituency and dependency, and of projection and its relation to action formation within and across languages. Based on video-recorded conversational data from French and Garrwa (Australian), we seek to illustrate how the discipline of linguistics can be enriched by attending to the temporal deployment of patterns of language use, and how this may in turn modify what we understand to be language structure.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company. This work was made publicly available by the publisher.
This work was made publicly available by the publisher.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.21008.mus
2021-05-06
2023-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.21008.mus
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/il.21008.mus.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/il.21008.mus&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Auer, P.
    (1998) Zwischen Parataxe und Hypotaxe: ‘abhängige Hauptsätze’ im gesprochenen und geschriebenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 1998, 284–307. 10.1515/zfgl.1998.26.3.284
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.1998.26.3.284 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2000) On line-Syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur. 85, 43–56. 10.30965/25890859‑031‑01‑90000005
     https://doi.org/10.30965/25890859-031-01-90000005 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2005) Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36. doi:  10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2009) Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 180–205. 10.1080/01638530902728934
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728934 [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, J. L.
    (1976) In How to do things with words (2nd ed.edited byJ. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa.). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2009) Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with the parallel-opposition construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2271–2294. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Belfrage, H.
    (1992) Aspects of verb and pronoun morphology, semantics and syntax in Garrwa [Honours]. University of Melbourne.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T.
    (1966) The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blythe, J.
    (2009) Doing referring in Murriny Patha conversation. PhD Dissertation: [University of Sydney].
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, H. H.
    (1996) Communities, commonalities, and communication. InJ. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.324–355). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Clift, R.
    (2007) Grammar in time: the non-restrictive ‘which’-clause as an interactional resource. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 55, 51–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (1996) Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: The case of because. Pragmatics, 6(2), 389–426. 10.1075/prag.6.3.04cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.04cou [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011) Grammaticization and conversation. InH. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp.424–437). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2012) Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes, 49, 273–299. 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111 [Google Scholar]
  16. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T.
    (2007) ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513–552. doi:  10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  17. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S.
    (2008) On assessing situations and events in conversation: “extraposition” and its relatives. Discourse Studies, 10(4), 443–467. 10.1177/1461445608091882
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608091882 [Google Scholar]
  19. Croft, W.
    (2016) Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology, 20(2). doi:  10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0012 [Google Scholar]
  20. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  21. Deppermann, A.
    (2013) Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 91–121. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  22. Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S.
    (Eds.) (2015) Temporality in interaction (pp.1–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27 [Google Scholar]
  23. Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2021) Longitudinal Conversation Analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2021.1899707
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899707 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., Gísladóttir, R., Kendrick, K. H., Levinson, S. C., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J.
    (2015) Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS One, 10(9), 1–15. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0136100
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136100 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (1972) The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084987
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084987 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010) Basic linguistic theory. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dryer, M.
    (2006) Descriptive theories, explanatory theories and Basic Linguistic Theory. InF. K. Ameka, A. Dench, & N. Evans (Eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing (pp.207–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110197693
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197693 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2013) Order of subject, object and verb. InM. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/81
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Du Bois, J. W.
    (1987) The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805. doi:  10.2307/415719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  30. Duranti, A., & Ochs, E.
    (1979) Left dislocation in Italian conversation. InT. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp.377–416). New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368897_017
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_017 [Google Scholar]
  31. Eskildsen, S. W.
    (2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00698.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00698.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Evans, N.
    (2007) Insubordination and its uses. InI. Nicolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp.366–431). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448. doi:  10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X [Google Scholar]
  34. Ewing, M. C.
    (2019) The predicate as a locus of grammar and interaction in colloquial Indonesian. Studies in Language, 43(2), 402–443. 10.1075/sl.17062.ewi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17062.ewi [Google Scholar]
  35. Floyd, S., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Torreira, F.
    (2016) Timing of visual bodily behavior in repair sequences: Evidence from three languages. Discourse Processes, 53(3), 175–204. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.992680
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.992680 [Google Scholar]
  36. Foley, W. A.
    (1976) Comparative syntax in Austronesian [PhD Dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, R. D.
    (1984) Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ford, C. E.
    (1993) Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1996) Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427–454. 10.1075/prag.6.3.07for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.07for [Google Scholar]
  40. (2002) Constituency and turn increments. InC. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turns and Sequences. London: Oxford University Press, 14–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Fox, B.
    (1987) Discourse structure and anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627767
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627767 [Google Scholar]
  42. Garde, M.
    (2013) Culture, interaction and person reference in an Australian language: An ethnography of Bininj Gunwok communication. John Benjamins. 10.1075/clu.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.11 [Google Scholar]
  43. Geluykens, R.
    (1992) From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction. On left-dislocation in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Goodwin, Ch.
    (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.97–121). Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Goodwin, C.
    (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers / Charles Goodwin. InConversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, Ch.
    (1986) Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Goodwin, C.
    (2002) Time in action. Current Anthropology43 (S4), 19–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and Conversation. InP. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts [Syntax and Semantics 3] (pp.41–58). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  49. Günthner, S.
    (1996) From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6, 323–371. 10.1075/prag.6.3.05gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.05gun [Google Scholar]
  50. (2006) Was ihn trieb, war vor allem Wanderlust” (Hesse: Narziss und Goldmund): Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. InS. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp.59–90). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894158.59
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894158.59 [Google Scholar]
  51. Günthner, S. & Hopper, P. J.
    (2010) Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung-Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 11, 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Haiman, J.
    (1998) Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language / John Haiman. InTalk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Haspelmath, M.
    (2010) Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. doi:  10.1353/lan.2010.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hayashi, M.
    (2004) Projection and grammar: notes on the “action-projecting” use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1337–1374. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  55. Helmer, H., Reinke, S. & Deppermann, A.
    2016 A range of uses of negative epistemic constructions in German: Ich weiss nicht as a resource for dispreferred actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 97–114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  56. Heritage, J.
    (2007) Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. InN. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction (pp.255–280). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L.
    (Eds.) (2018) Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hopper, P. J.
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2011) Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. InP. Auer & S. Pfänder, (Eds.). Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.22–44). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.22
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  60. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251. doi:  10.2307/413757
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413757 [Google Scholar]
  61. (1984) The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60(4), 703. doi:  10.2307/413797
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413797 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. InR. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp.99–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  63. Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  64. Kärkkäinen, E.
    (2003) Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.115
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
  65. Kendrick, K. H. & Holler, J.
    (2017) Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120 [Google Scholar]
  66. Keevallik, L.
    (2011) The terms of not knowing. InT. Stivers, L. Mondada, J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp.184–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2020) Grammatical coordination of embodied action: The Estonian ja ‘and’ as a temporal coordinator of Pilates moves. InY. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindstöm, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent syntax for conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action (p.221–244). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.32.08kee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.08kee [Google Scholar]
  68. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol.2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Laughren, M., Pensalfini, R., & Mylne, T.
    (2005) Accounting for verb-initial order in an Australian language. InA. Carnie, H. Harley, & S. A. Dooley (Eds.), Verb First: On the syntax of verb-initial languages (Vol.73, pp.367–401). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.73.22lau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.73.22lau [Google Scholar]
  70. Laury, R.
    (1997) Demonstratives in interaction: the emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Absterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2012) Syntactically non-integrated Finnish jos ‘if’ conditional clauses as directives. Discourse Processes, 49, 213–242. 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664758
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664758 [Google Scholar]
  72. Laury, R. & Okamoto, S.
    (2011) Teyuuka and I mean as pragmatic parentheticals in Japanese and English. InLaury, R. & Suzuki, R. (eds.), Subordination in conversation (pp.209–230). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.24.10lau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.10lau [Google Scholar]
  73. Laury, R. & Suzuki, R.
    (Eds.) (2011) Subordination in conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.24
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24 [Google Scholar]
  74. Lerner, G. H.
    (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20(3), 441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  75. Lévi-Strauss, C.
    (1960) La Pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics / Stephen C. Levinson. InPragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  77. Lindström, J., Laury, R. & Lindholm, C.
    (2019) Insubordination and the contextually sensitive emergence of if-requests in Swedish and Finnish institutional talk-in-interaction. InK. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck, & M. S. Sansiñena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp.55–78). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110638288‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110638288-003 [Google Scholar]
  78. Linell, P.
    (1998) Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  79. (2009) Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Luke, K., Thompson, S. A. & Ono, T.
    (2012) Turns and increments: A comparative perspective. Discourse Processes, 49(3–4), 155–162. 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664110 [Google Scholar]
  81. MacWhinney, B.
    (1987) The Competition model. InB. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language aquisition (pp.249–308). Mahawa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Maschler, Y., & Fishman, S.
    (2020) From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- ‘what that’ construction in pseudo-cleft-like structures. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 73–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  83. Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, J., & Keevallik, L.
    (Eds.) (2020) Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.32
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32 [Google Scholar]
  84. Matthiessen, Ch. & Thompson, S.
    (1988) The structure of discourse and “subordination”. InHaiman, J. & Thompson, S. (Eds.), Clause-combining in grammar and discourse (pp.275–333). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.12mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.12mat [Google Scholar]
  85. Mithun, M.
    (1992) Is basic word order universal?InD. L. Payne (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.22.02mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.22.02mit [Google Scholar]
  86. Mondada, L.
    (2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 195–226. 10.1177/1461445607075346
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  87. Mushin, I.
    (1995) Epistememes in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 1–32. 10.1080/07268609508599514
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609508599514 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2005, October). Second Position Clitic Phenomena in North-Central Australia: Some Pragmatic Considerations.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. (2006) Motivations for second position: Evidence from North-Central Australia. Linguistic Typology, 10(3), 287–326. 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2006.010 [Google Scholar]
  90. (2010) Code-Switching as an Interactional Resource in Garrwa/Kriol Talk-in-Interaction. Australian Journal of Linguistics: Studies in Australian Indigenous Conversation, 30(4), 471–496. 10.1080/07268602.2010.518556
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2010.518556 [Google Scholar]
  91. (2012) A grammar of (Western) Garrwa. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614512417
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512417 [Google Scholar]
  92. (2014) Liminal pronoun systems: Evidence from Garrwa. InR. Pensalfini, M. Turpin, & D. Guillemin (Eds.), Studies in Language Companion Series (pp.99–122). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.147.06mus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.147.06mus [Google Scholar]
  93. (2018a) Grammaticalization and typology in Australian Aboriginal languages. InH. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  94. (2018b) Diverging from ‘business as usual’: Turn-initial ngala in Garrwa conversation. InJ. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction (pp.119–154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.31.05mus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.05mus [Google Scholar]
  95. Newmeyer, F. J.
    (2016) Formal and functional explanation. InI. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar (pp.128–152). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573776.013.7
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573776.013.7 [Google Scholar]
  96. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  97. Ogden, R.
    (2013) Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(3), 299–320. 10.1017/S0025100313000224
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100313000224 [Google Scholar]
  98. Ono, T., & Thompson, S. A.
    (2017) Negative scope, temporality, fixedness, and right- and left-branching: Implications for typology and cognitive processing. Studies in Language, 41(3), 543–576. doi:  10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono [Google Scholar]
  99. (Eds.) (2020) The “Noun Phrase” across languages: An emergent unit in interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.128
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.128 [Google Scholar]
  100. Payne, D. L.
    (1990) The pragmatics of word order: Typological dimensions of verb initial languages. InD. L. Payne (Ed.), The pragmatics of word order: Typological dimensions of verb initial languages. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110847284
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847284 [Google Scholar]
  101. Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2011) Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: projector constructions in French conversation. InR. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: a crosslinguistic perspective (pp.103–148). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.24.06doe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.06doe [Google Scholar]
  102. (2016) More than an epistemic hedge: French je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequential organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 148–162. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  103. (2018) Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: the development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759 [Google Scholar]
  104. (2019) At the interface of grammar and the body. Chais pas ‘dunno’ as a resource for dealing with lack of recipient response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(4), 1–23. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1657276
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1657276 [Google Scholar]
  105. (2020) Word-order affects response latency: Action projection and the timing of responses to question-word questions. Discourse Processes. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2020.1824443
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1824443 [Google Scholar]
  106. (forthc.). How grammar grows out of social interaction: From multi-unit to single unit question. Open Linguistics. https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/OPLI/html
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S.
    (2015) Time and emergence in grammar: Left-dislocation, right-dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.28
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.28 [Google Scholar]
  108. Pomerantz, Anita and John Heritage
    2013 Preference. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp.210–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Reber, E.
    (2012) Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.215
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.215 [Google Scholar]
  110. Rossano, F.
    (2012) Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Sacks, H.
    (1987) On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. InG. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp.54–69). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  113. Saussure, F. de
    (1972 [1916]) Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  115. (1996a) Confirming allusion: toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. 10.1086/230911
     https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  116. (1996b) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  117. (2000) On turns’ possible completion, more or less: increments and trail-offs. Paper delivered at the1st Euroconference on Interactional Linguistics, Spa, Belgium.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. (2016) Increments. InJ. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp.238–263). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  119. Scollon, R.
    (1976) Conversations with a one year old. A case study of the developmental foundation of syntax. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language / John R. Searle. InSpeech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  121. (1975) Indirect speech acts. InP. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol.3, pp.41–58). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Selting, M.
    (2000) The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517. 10.1017/S0047404500004012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004012 [Google Scholar]
  123. (2007) Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 483–526. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  124. Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (Eds.) (2001) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamin. 10.1075/sidag.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  125. Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (Eds.) (2017) Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30 [Google Scholar]
  126. Stoenica, I. M.
    (2020) Actions et conduites mimo-gestuelles dans l’usage conversationnel des relatives en français. Berne: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b16516
     https://doi.org/10.3726/b16516 [Google Scholar]
  127. Stoenica, I-M., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Horlacher, A-S.
    (2020) Emergent complex NPs: On-line trajectories of ‘relativized’ NPs in French talk-in-interaction. InT. Ono & S. Thompson (Eds.), The ‘Noun Phrase’ across languages: An emergent unit in interaction (pp.43–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.128.03sto
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.128.03sto [Google Scholar]
  128. Streeck, J.
    (2009) Forward-gesturing. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 161–179. 10.1080/01638530902728793
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728793 [Google Scholar]
  129. Streeck, J., & Jordan, S.
    (Eds.) (2009) Projection and anticipation in embodied interaction [Special issue]. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3).
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Tanaka, H.
    (2005) Grammar and the “timing” of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society, 34(03). doi:  10.1017/S0047404505050141
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404505050141 [Google Scholar]
  131. Thompson, S. A.
    (2019) Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. Studies in Language, 43(2), 254–280. 10.1075/sl.16032.tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16032.tho [Google Scholar]
  132. Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2005) The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse studies, 7(4–5), 481–505. 10.1177/1461445605054403
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  133. Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A.
    (1991) A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. InE. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp.313–329). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  134. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based approach to child language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Traugott, E. C.
    2008 All that he endeavoured to prove was…: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogal and dialogic contexts. InR. Kempson & R. Cooper (Eds.), Language in glux: variation, change and evolution (pp.219–250). London: College Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Van Valin, R. D.
    (1977) Aspects of Lakhota syntax [PhD Dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Van Valin, R. D., & LaPolla, R. J.
    (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  138. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1962) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.1037/11193‑000
     https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/il.21008.mus
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): emergence; French; Garrwa; interactional linguistics; projection; temporality

Most Cited

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