1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper offers some reflections on the study of morphology – broadly speaking, ‘word formation’ – as a participants’ resource in social interaction. I begin by calling attention to morphology as a comparatively underexamined component of linguistic structure by conversation analysts and interactional linguists, in that it has yet to receive the same dedicated consideration as have, e.g., phonetics and syntax. I then present an ongoing study of suffixes/suffixation in Spanish – focusing on diminutives (e.g., –), augmentatives (e.g., –), and superlatives (i.e., –) – and describe how the sequentiality of interaction can offer analysts profound insight into participants’ orientations to morphological resources. With what I refer to as ‘morphological transformations’ – exemplified here in both same-turn and next-turn positions – interactants sequentially construct and expose morphological complexity as such, locally instantiating its relevance in the service of action. It is argued that a focus on transformations therefore provides analysts with a means to ‘break into’ morphology-based collections. A range of cases are presented to illustrate this methodological approach, before a concluding discussion in which I describe how morphology-focused investigations may intersect with explorations of other interactional phenomena.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.21012.ray
2022-01-13
2025-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.21012.ray
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aronoff, M.
    (1994) Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronoff, M., & Fudeman, K.
    (2011) What is Morphology. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, P.
    (2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25(1):7–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, P., & Pfänder, S.
    (2011) Constructions: Emerging and emergent. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbaresi, L. M., & Dressler, W. U.
    (2020) Pragmatic explanations in morphology. InV. Pirrelli, I. Plag, & W. U. Dressler (Eds.), Word knowledge and word usage (pp.405–451). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110440577‑011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110440577-011 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2016) Intonation units revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.29
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.29 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barth-Weingarten, D., Küttner, U.-A., & Raymond, C. W.
    (2021) Pivots revisited: Cesuring in action. Open Linguistics. issue7, pages613–63710.1515/opli‑2020‑0152
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2020-0152 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E., & Selting, M.
    (2010) Prosody in Interaction. Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23 [Google Scholar]
  9. Betz, E.
    (2008) Grammar and interaction: Pivots in German conversation. Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.21
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.21 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolden, G. B.
    (2014) Negotiating Understanding in “Intercultural Moments” in Immigrant Family Interactions. Communication Monographs, 81(2):208–238. 10.1080/03637751.2014.902983
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.902983 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2017) Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation. InSorjonen, Raevaara & Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp.175–211). Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.06bol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.06bol [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolden, G. B., & Robinson, J. D.
    (2011) Soliciting accounts with ‘why’-interrogatives in naturally occurring English conversation. Journal of Communication, 61:94–119. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01528.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, J.
    (1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1998) The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society34(2):421–435.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J.
    (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clayman, S. E., & Raymond, C. W.
    (2015) Modular Pivots: A Resource for Extending Turns at Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4):388–405. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1090112
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1090112 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2021) ‘You know’ as invoking alignment: A generic resource for emerging problems of understanding and affiliation. Journal of Pragmatics182:293–309. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.011 [Google Scholar]
  18. Clift, R.
    (2001) Meaning in interaction: The case of “actually.” Language, 77(2):245–291. 10.1353/lan.2001.0074
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0074 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2006) Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(5):569–595. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00296.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x [Google Scholar]
  20. (2016) Conversation Analysis. Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Clift, R., & Raymond, C. W.
    (2018) Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1):90–119. 10.1177/1461445617734344
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734344 [Google Scholar]
  22. Comrie, B.
    (1985) Tense. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9781139165815
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165815 [Google Scholar]
  23. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2001) Interactional Prosody: High Onsets in Reason-for-the-Call Turns. Language in Society30(1): 29–53. 10.1017/S0047404501001026
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501001026 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2012) Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes49(3–4):273–299. 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2018) Finding a place for body movement in grammar. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(1):22–25. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413888
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413888 [Google Scholar]
  26. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Etelämäki, M.
    (2014) On divisions of labor in request and offer environments. InDrew & Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp.115–144). Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.05cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.05cou [Google Scholar]
  27. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. E.
    (2004) Sound Patterns in Interaction. Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62 [Google Scholar]
  28. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T.
    (2007) Incrementing in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics17(4):513–552. 10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou [Google Scholar]
  29. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (1996) Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2018) Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Curl, T. S.
    (2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38:1257–1280. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Curl, T. S., & Drew, P.
    (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2):1–25. 10.1080/08351810802028613
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  33. Deppermann, A.
    (2011) The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies, 34:115–128. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2018) Inferential Practices in Social Interaction: A Conversation-Analytic Account. Open Linguistics, 4:35–55. 10.1515/opli‑2018‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0003 [Google Scholar]
  35. Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E.
    (2019) Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 140:140–155. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  36. Dressler, W. U.
    (2000) Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. InU. Doleschal & A. M. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (pp.1–10). LINCOM.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Dressler, W. U., & Barbaresi, L. M.
    (1994) Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110877052
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877052 [Google Scholar]
  38. Drew, P.
    (1978) Accusations: The use of members’ knowledge of “religious geography” in describing events. Sociology, 12:1–22. 10.1177/003803857801200102
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200102 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2003) Precision and exaggeration in interaction. American Sociological Review, 68:917–938. 10.2307/1519751
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1519751 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2013) Turn Design. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.131–149). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (2018a) Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies, 20(1):163–187. 10.1177/1461445617734347
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734347 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2018b) Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4(1):241–259. 10.1515/opli‑2018‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0013 [Google Scholar]
  43. Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2014) Requesting in Social Interaction. Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26 [Google Scholar]
  44. Drew, P., & Holt, E.
    (1988) Complainable Matters: The Use of Idiomatic Expressions in Making Complaints. Social Problems, 35(4):398–417. 10.2307/800594
     https://doi.org/10.2307/800594 [Google Scholar]
  45. Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R.
    (2013) Self-repair and action construction. InHayashi, Raymond, & Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp.71–94). Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Dryer, M. S.
    (2008) Polar questions. InM. Haspelmath, (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, vol.116. Max Planck Digital Library. Available at: wals.info/feature/116
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Egbert, M.
    (2004) Other-initiated repair and membership categorization: Some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 36:1467–1498. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.11.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  48. Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C. W., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2019) Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55(2):277–304. 10.1017/S0022226718000336
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336 [Google Scholar]
  49. Escobar, A. M.
    (2011) Spanish in contact with Quechua. InM. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), The Handbook of Spanish Sociolinguistics, pp.323–352. Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444393446.ch16
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444393446.ch16 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ford, C. E.
    (1993) Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (2002) Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. InC. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp.14–38). Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1996) Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. InOchs, Schegloff, & Thompson, (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.134–184). Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  53. Fox, B. A.
    (2001) An exploration of prosody and turn projection in English conversation. InMargret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp.287–315). Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.14fox
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.14fox [Google Scholar]
  54. Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T.
    (2016) Rethinking format: An examination of requests. Language in Society45(4):499–531. 10.1017/S0047404516000385
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404516000385 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2017) Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics, 3:31–64. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0003 [Google Scholar]
  56. Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1999) A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation. Language, 66(2):297–316. 10.2307/414888
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414888 [Google Scholar]
  57. Fox, B. A., Wouk, F., Fincke, S., Hernandez Flores, W., Hayashi, M., Laakso, M., Maschler, Y., Mehrabi, A., Sorjonen, M.-L., Uhmann, S., & Yang, H. J.
    (2017) Morphological self-repair: Self-repair within the word. Studies in Language, 41(3):638–656. 10.1075/sl.41.3.04fox
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.04fox [Google Scholar]
  58. Gaarder, A. B.
    (1966) Los llamados diminutivos y aumentativos en el español de México. PMLA81(7):585–595. 10.2307/461214
     https://doi.org/10.2307/461214 [Google Scholar]
  59. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Gill, V. T., Halkowski, T., & Roberts, F.
    (2001) Accomplishing a request without making one: A single case analysis of a primary care visit. Text, 21(1/2):55–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Gill, V. T., & Maynard, D. W.
    (1995) On “Labeling” in Actual Interaction: Delivering and Receiving Diagnoses of Developmental Disabilities. Social Problems, 42(1):11–37. 10.2307/3097003
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3097003 [Google Scholar]
  62. Givón, T.
    (1971) Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society7:394–415.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Goodwin, C.
    (1979) The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp.97–121). Irvington Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (2018) Co-Operative Action. Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H.
    (1987) Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1:1–54. 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
  67. Goodwin, M. H.
    (1990) He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Grandi, N., & Körtvélyessy, L.
    (2015) Introduction: Why evaluative morphology?InN. Grandi & L. Körtvélyessy (Eds.), Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology (pp.3–20). Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748681754‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748681754-005 [Google Scholar]
  69. Günthner, S.
    (1996) From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6(3):323–356. 10.1075/prag.6.3.05gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.05gun [Google Scholar]
  70. Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M.
    (2005) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction. Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  71. Harjunpää, K., Deppermann, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L.
    (2021) Constructing the Chekhovian inner body in instructions: An interactional history of factuality and agentivity. Journal of Pragmatics171:158–74. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.034
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.034 [Google Scholar]
  72. Haspelmath, M.
    (2011) The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica45(1):31–80. 10.1515/flin.2011.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  73. (2018) The last word on polysynthesis: A review article. Linguistic Typology, 22(2):307–326. 10.1515/lingty‑2018‑0011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2018-0011 [Google Scholar]
  74. Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D.
    (2010) Understanding Morphology (2nd). Hodder Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Hayashi, M.
    (2003) Language and the body as resources for collaborative action: A study of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2):109–141. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_2 [Google Scholar]
  76. Helmer, H.
    (2020) How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of German x heißt y (‘x means y’). Discourse Processes, 57(3):278–299. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567 [Google Scholar]
  77. Helmer, H., & Zinken, J.
    (2019) Das heißt (‘that means’) for formulations and du meinst (‘you mean’) for repair? Interpretations of prior speakers’ turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3):159–176. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1608098
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1608098 [Google Scholar]
  78. Heritage, J.
    (1984a) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InAtkinson & Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp.299–345). Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. (1984b) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. (1998) Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3):291–334. 10.1017/S0047404500019990
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990 [Google Scholar]
  81. (2011) A Galilean Moment in Social Theory? Language, Culture and their Emergent Properties. Qualitative Sociology, 34:263–270. 10.1007/s11133‑010‑9180‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9180-y [Google Scholar]
  82. (2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1):1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  83. (2012b) The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1):30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  84. (2018) The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal to the “epistemics of epistemics” group. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 14–56. 10.1177/1461445617734342
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734342 [Google Scholar]
  85. Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W.
    (2021) Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1):39–59. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155 [Google Scholar]
  86. Heritage, J., & Raymond, G.
    (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1):15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  87. (2012) Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions. InJ. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives (pp.179–192). Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  88. Hopper, P. J.
    (1987) Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13:139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  89. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
    (2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. InLaury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp.99–123). Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  90. Iwasaki, S.
    (2009) Initiating Interactive Turn Spaces in Japanese Conversation: Local Projection and Collaborative Action. Discourse Processes46:226–246. 10.1080/01638530902728918
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918 [Google Scholar]
  91. (2015) Collaboratively organized stancetaking in Japanese: Sharing and negotiating stance within the turn constructional unit. Journal of Pragmatics83:104–119. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  92. Jefferson, G.
    (1978) What’s In a “Nyem”?Sociology, 12(1):135–139. 10.1177/003803857801200109
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200109 [Google Scholar]
  93. (1985) An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter. InT. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Vol. 3) (pp.25–34). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. (1996) A case of transcriptional stereotyping. Journal of Pragmatics26:159–70. 10.1016/0378‑2166(96)00010‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(96)00010-0 [Google Scholar]
  95. (2004) Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. InG. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp.13–31). Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  96. Jurafsky, D.
    (1996) Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language72:533–578. 10.2307/416278
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416278 [Google Scholar]
  97. Keevallik, L.
    (2011) Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43:2879–2896. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  98. (2018) What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51, 1–21. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887 [Google Scholar]
  99. Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2020) Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168:119–138. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  100. Körtvélyessy, L.
    (2014) Evaluative derivation. InR. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (pp.296–316). Oxford.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Laury, R.
    (Ed.) (2008) Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80 [Google Scholar]
  102. Laury, R., & Ono, T.
    (2014) The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics24(3):561–92. 10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau [Google Scholar]
  103. Laury, R., & Suzuki, R.
    (2011) Subordination in conversation: a cross-linguistic perspective. Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.24
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24 [Google Scholar]
  104. Lerner, G. H.
    (1991) On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress. Language in Society, 20:441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  105. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  106. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  107. Li, X.
    (2014) Multimodality, Interaction, and Turn-Taking in Mandarin Conversation. Benjamins. 10.1075/scld.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.3 [Google Scholar]
  108. Local, J.
    (1996) Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. InCouper-Kuhlen & Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation. (pp.177–230). Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.007 [Google Scholar]
  109. Local, J., & Walker, G.
    (2004) Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 36:1375–1403. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  110. (2012) How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42(3):255–280. 10.1017/S0025100312000187
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100312000187 [Google Scholar]
  111. MacWhinney, B.
    (2007) The TalkBank Project. InJ. C. Beal, K. P. Corrigan, & H. L. M. Moisl (Eds.), Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Synchronic Databases, vol.1. Palgrave-Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230223936_7
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230223936_7 [Google Scholar]
  112. Mandelbaum, J.
    (1990/91) Beyond mundane reason: Conversation analysis and context. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24:333–350. 10.1080/08351819009389346
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351819009389346 [Google Scholar]
  113. Marrese, O. M., Raymond, C. W., Fox, B. A., Ford, C. E., & Pielke, M.
    (2021) The grammar of obviousness: Gesture in argument sequences. Frontiers in Communication. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.663067
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.663067 [Google Scholar]
  114. Martín Zorraquino, M. A.
    (2012) Los diminutivos en español: aspectos morfológicos, semánticos y pragmáticos. InL. Luque Toro, J. F. Medina Montero, & R. Luque (Eds.), Léxico Español Actual III (pp.123–140). Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, L., & Keevallik, L.
    (2020) Emergent syntax for conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action. Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.32
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32 [Google Scholar]
  116. Matthews, P. H.
    (1991) Morphology (2nd). Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9781139166485
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166485 [Google Scholar]
  117. Maynard, D. W.
    (2011) On “interactional semantics” and problems of meaning. Human Studies, 34(2):199–207. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9188‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9188-7 [Google Scholar]
  118. Mondada, L.
    (2018) Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1):85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  119. Montes Giraldo, J. J.
    (1972) Funciones del diminutivo en español: ensayo de clasificación. Thesaurus27(1):71–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Mushin, I., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2021) Linguistic structures in social interaction: Moving temporality to the forefront of a linguistic science. Interactional Linguistics, 1(1):1–31. 10.1075/il.21008.mus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21008.mus [Google Scholar]
  121. Norén, N., & Linell, P.
    (Eds.) (2013) Pivot constructions as everyday conversational phenomena within a cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics54. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  122. Ochs, E.
    (1979) Transcription as Theory. InE. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental Pragmatics (pp.43–72). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Ogden, R.
    (2001) Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31(1):139–152. 10.1017/S0025100301001116
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100301001116 [Google Scholar]
  124. (2004) Non-modal voice quality and turntaking in Finnish. InCouper-Kuhlen & Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction (pp.29–62). Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62.05ogd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.05ogd [Google Scholar]
  125. (2006) Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38:1752–1775. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  126. Ogden, R., & Walker, T.
    (2013) Phonetic resources in the construction of social actions. InB. Szczepek-Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk, Units of action (pp.277–312). Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.09ogd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.09ogd [Google Scholar]
  127. Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (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 Interaction52(4):365–387. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1657276
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1657276 [Google Scholar]
  128. Penny, R.
    (2002) A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511992827
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511992827 [Google Scholar]
  129. Pfänder, S., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2019) Turn-sharing revisited: An exploration of simultaneous speech in interactions between couples. Journal of Pragmatics, 147:22–48. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  130. Pomerantz, A. M.
    (1980) Telling my side: ‘limited access’ as a ‘fishing device’. Sociological Inquiry50:186–198. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  131. (1984) Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. InAtkinson & Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp.57–101). Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. (1988) Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy. Communication Monographs, 55:360–373. 10.1080/03637758809376177
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
  133. (2017) Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. InG. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct (pp.61–77). Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.04pom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.04pom [Google Scholar]
  134. Prieto, V. M.
    (2005) Spanish evaluative morphology: Pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and semantic issues. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.
  135. Raymond, C. W.
    (2012) Reallocation of pronouns through contact: In-the-moment identity construction amongst Southern California Salvadorans. Journal of Sociolinguistics16(5):669–690. 10.1111/josl.12001
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12001 [Google Scholar]
  136. (2014) Epistemic Brokering in the Interpreter-mediated Medical Visit: Negotiating “Patient’s Side” and “Doctor’s Side” Knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 47(4):426–446. 10.1080/08351813.2015.958281
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.958281 [Google Scholar]
  137. (2015a) Dialectos, identidades y tratamientos en el discurso cotidiano: Un argumento concreto a favor de los métodos mixtos en las investigaciones dialectológicas y sociolingüísticas. InJ. Rodríguez & M. Pérez (Eds.), Amicitia Fecunda: Estudios en Homenaje a Claudia Parodi (pp.213–234). Madrid: Iberoamericana.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. (2015b) Questions and Responses in Spanish Monolingual and Spanish-English Bilingual Conversation. Language & Communication, 42:50–68. 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  139. (2016) Linguistic reference in the negotiation of identity and action: Revisiting the T/V distinction. Language, 92(3):636–670. 10.1353/lan.2016.0053
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0053 [Google Scholar]
  140. (2017) Indexing a contrast: The ‘do’-construction in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 118:22–37. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  141. (2018) On the Relevance and Accountability of Dialect: Conversation Analysis and Contact Linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22(2):161–189. 10.1111/josl.12277
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12277 [Google Scholar]
  142. (2019) Intersubjectivity, normativity, and grammar. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(2):182–204. 10.1177/0190272519850781
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519850781 [Google Scholar]
  143. Raymond, C. W., Clift, R., & Heritage, J.
    (2021) Reference without anaphora: On agency through grammar. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 59(3):715–755. 10.1515/ling‑2021‑0058
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0058 [Google Scholar]
  144. Raymond, C. W., & Fox, B. A.
    (2020) Asserting No-Problemness in Spanish: ‘No hay (ningún) problema’ and the Study of Noun Phrases in Interaction. InT. Ono & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Pragmatics of the ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages (pp.119–152). Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.128.06ray
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.128.06ray [Google Scholar]
  145. Raymond, C. W., & Heritage, J.
    (2021) Probability and Valence: Two Preferences in the Design of Polar Questions and their Management. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1):60–79. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864156
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864156 [Google Scholar]
  146. Raymond, C. W., Olguín, L. M.
    (2022) Análisis de la Conversación: Fundamentos, metodología y alcances. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429507274
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507274 [Google Scholar]
  147. Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., Fox, B. A., Thompson, S. A., & Montiegel, K.
    (2021) Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting. Language in Society, 50:53–91. 10.1017/S004740452000069X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740452000069X [Google Scholar]
  148. Raymond, G.
    (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68(6):939–967. 10.2307/1519752
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  149. Robinson, J. D.
    (2013) Overall Structural Organization. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.257–280). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  150. (2016) Accountability in social interaction. InJ. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp.3–46). Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  151. (2020) One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement. Research on Language & Social Interaction53(4):425–442. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759 [Google Scholar]
  152. Rossi, G.
    (2012) Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes, 49(5):426–458. 10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136 [Google Scholar]
  153. Sacks, H.
    (1975) Everyone Has to Lie. InM. Sanches & B. G. Blount (Eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use (pp.57–80). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  154. (1984) Notes on Methodology. InAtkinson & Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp.21–27). Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  155. (1987[1973]) 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). Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. (1992) Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50:696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  158. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1979) The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation. InT. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp.261–288). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  159. (1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. InD. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse (pp.71–93). Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. (1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided for place for the defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 95(5):1295–1345. 10.1086/229903
     https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  161. (1996a) Confirming Allusions: 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]
  162. (1996b) Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction. InOchs, Schegloff & Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  163. (2007) Sequence organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis Volume 1. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  164. (2013) Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. InHayashi, Raymond, & Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp.41–70). Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  165. (2016[2000]) Increments. InJ. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp.239–263). Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  166. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening Up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4):289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  167. Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1996) Introduction. InOchs, Schegloff & Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.1–51). Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001 [Google Scholar]
  168. Selting, M.
    (1996) Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair initiation. InCouper-Kuhlen & Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation (pp.231–270). Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
  169. (2000) The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society29(4):477–517. 10.1017/S0047404500004012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004012 [Google Scholar]
  170. (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]
  171. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  172. Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2017) Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action. Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30 [Google Scholar]
  173. Spencer, A., & Luís, A. R.
    (2012) Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9781139033763
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139033763 [Google Scholar]
  174. (2013) The canonical clitic. InD. Brown, M. Chumakina, & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  175. Stevanovic, M.
    (2017) Managing Compliance in Violin Instruction: The Case of the Finnish Clitic Particles –pa and –pAs in Imperatives and Hortatives. InSorjonen, Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp.357–380). Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.12ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.12ste [Google Scholar]
  176. Stivers, T.
    (2004) “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2):260–293. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  177. (2005) Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2):131–158. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  178. (2011) Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. InT. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp.82–106). Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005 [Google Scholar]
  179. (2019) How We Manage Social Relationships Through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3):191–209. 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214 [Google Scholar]
  180. Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M.
    (2010) Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints. Language in Society, 39:1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  181. Szczepek Reed, B.
    (2012) Beyond the particular: Prosody and the coordination of actions. Language and Speech, 55(1):13–34. 10.1177/0023830911428871
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911428871 [Google Scholar]
  182. Taleghani-Nikazm, C.
    (2006) Request sequences: The intersection of grammar, interaction and social context. Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.19
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.19 [Google Scholar]
  183. Tanaka, H.
    (2004) Prosody for marking transition-relevance places in Japanese conversation. InCouper-Kuhlen & Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction (pp.63–96). Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62.06tan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.06tan [Google Scholar]
  184. Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2005) The Clause as a Locus of Grammar and Interaction. Language and Linguistics, 6(4):807–837.
     [Google Scholar]
  185. (2020) English why don’t you X as a formulaic expression. InR. Laury & T. Ono (Eds.), Fixed Expressions: Building Linguistic Structure and Social Action (pp.99–132). Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.315.05tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.05tho [Google Scholar]
  186. Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2015) Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  187. Vázquez Carranza, A.
    (2016) Remembering and noticing: A conversation-analytic study of “ah” in Mexican Spanish talk. Spanish in Context, 13(2):212–236. 10.1075/sic.13.2.03vaz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.13.2.03vaz [Google Scholar]
  188. (2017) Some uses of “no” in Spanish talk-in-interactions. International Review of Pragmatics, 9:224–247. 10.1163/18773109‑00901009
     https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901009 [Google Scholar]
  189. Walker, G.
    (2007) On the design and use of pivots in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12):2217–2243. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  190. (2010) The phonetic constitution of a turn-holding practice: Rush-throughs in English talk-in-interaction. InBarth-Weingarten, Reber, & Selting, Prosody in Interaction (pp.51–72). Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.23.08wal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.08wal [Google Scholar]
  191. (2013) Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.455–474). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  192. (2017) Pitch and the projection of more talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2):206–225. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1301310
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301310 [Google Scholar]
  193. Walker, T., Drew, P., & Local, J.
    (2011) Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics43(9):2434–2451. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.012 [Google Scholar]
  194. Zinken, J.
    (2016) Requesting responsibility: The morality of grammar in Polish and English family interaction. Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  195. Zinken, J., & Deppermann, A.
    (2017) A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns: Evidence from German and Polish. InSorjonen, Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp.27–63). Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.02zin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.02zin [Google Scholar]
  196. Zuluaga Ospina, A.
    (1970) La función del diminutivo en español. Thesaurus, 1(1):23–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  197. Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K.
    (1983) Cliticization vs. inflection: The case of English n’t. Language59(3):502–513. 10.2307/413900
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413900 [Google Scholar]
  198. (1987) Plain morphology and expressive morphology. Berkeley Linguistics Society13:330–340. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1817
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1817 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.21012.ray
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): augmentatives; conversation; conversation analysis (CA); diminutives; grammar; interactional linguistics (IL); methods/methodology; morphology; Spanish; superlatives

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