1887
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Introduction, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/prag.24.3.01lau-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.01lau
2015-09-01
2019-09-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anward, J
    (2003) On recursivity. Clauses in a dialogical grammar of Swedish. In L.-O. Delsing , C. Falk , G. Josefsson , and H. Sigurδsson (eds.), Grammatik i fokus. Festskrift till Christer Platzack. [Grammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack]. Vol. 2. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk, pp.17-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, P
    (2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25.1: 7-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2009) On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences31: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, P. , E. Couper-Kuhlen , and F. Müller
    (1999) Language in Time: The rhythm and tempo of spoken interaction. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, P. , and S. Pfänder
    (2011) Constructions: Emergent or emerging?In P. Auer , and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: pp.1-21. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.1 [Google Scholar]
  6. (eds.) (2011) Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mourton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110229080
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barlow, M. , and S. Kemmer
    (2000) Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barth-Weingarten, D. , E. Reber , and M. Selting
    (eds.) (2011) Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blanche-Benveniste, C
    (1990) Un modèle d’analyse syntaxique “en grilles„ pour les productions orales. Anuario de Psicologia47: 11-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J
    (1998) The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society34: The Panels. pp.421-435.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, J. , and S.A. Thompson
    (1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society23: 378-388.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chafe, W
    (1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Clancy, P
    (1980) Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.127-202.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Couper-Kuhlen, E. , and M. Selting
    (eds.) (2001) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  15. Couper-Kuhlen, E. , and C.E Ford
    (eds.) (2004) Sound Patterns in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/tsl.62
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62 [Google Scholar]
  16. Croft, W
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cumming, S. , T. Ono , and R. Laury
    (2011) Discourse, grammar and interaction. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies. 2nd edition. London: Sage, pp.8-35.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Curl, T.S
    (2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics38: 1257-1280. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  19. Curl, T.S. , and P. Drew
    (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction41.2: 129-153. doi: 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  20. Deppermann, A
    (2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen , and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.289-317. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.15dep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.15dep [Google Scholar]
  21. (2006a) Construction Grammar - eine Grammatik für die Interaktion?In A. Deppermann , R. Fiehler , and T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, pp.43-65.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006b) Konstitution von Wortbedeutung im Gespräch: Eine Studie am Beispiel des jugendsprachlichen Bewertungsadjektivs assi . In A. Deppermann , and T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Bedeuten: Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp.158-184.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2011a) The study of formulations as a key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies34. 2: 115-128. doi: 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2011b) Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings. A comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In P. Auer , and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.88-126.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Deppermann, A. , R. Fiehler , and T. Spranz-Fogasy
    (eds.) (2006) Grammatik und Interaktion. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschungwww.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Du Bois, J.W
    (1985) Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.343-365. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub [Google Scholar]
  27. Du Bois, J
    (2001) Towards a dialogic syntax.Ms. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Evans, V. , and M. Green
    (2006) Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fillmore, C. , P. Kay , and M.K. O’Connor
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of let alone. Language64: 501-538. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ford, C.E
    (1993) Grammar in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ford, C.E. , B.A. Fox , and S.A. Thompson
    (eds.) (2002) The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fox, B.A
    (2000) Micro-syntax in English conversation. Paper presented atthe conference Interactional Linguistics (sponsored by EURESCO), September, Spa, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies9: 299-318. doi: 10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  34. Fox, B.A. , M. Hayashi , and R. Jasperson
    (1996) A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. Interaction and grammar. E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff , and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.185-237. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Fox, B.A. , S.A. Thompson , C.E. Ford , and E. Couper-Kuhlen
    (2013) Conversation analysis in linguistics. In J. Sidnell , and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, pp.726-740.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fried, M. , and J.-O. Östman
    (eds.) (2004) Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/cal.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldberg, A
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2006) Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Günthner, S. , and J. Bücker
    (eds.) (2009) Grammatik im Gespräch. Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Günthner, S. , and W. Imo
    (eds.) (2006) Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110894158
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894158 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hacohen, G. , and E.A. Schegloff
    (2006) On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics38: 1305-1312. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hakulinen, A
    (1989) Keskusteluntutkimuksen tavoitteista ja menetelmistä [On the aims and methods of conversation analysis]. In A. Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I [Ways of Finnish conversation I]. Kieli 4. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki, pp.9-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (1996) Keskustelunanalyysin profiilista ja tilasta [On the profile and state of conversation analysis]. In A. Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja II [Ways of Finnish conversation II]. Kieli 10. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki, pp.9-22.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hakulinen, A. , and M. Selting
    (eds.) (2005) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hausendorf, H
    (ed.) (2007) Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Heinemann, T
    (2006) ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics38: 1081-1104. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hopper, P
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society13: 139-157.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1998) Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.155-175.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hopper, P.J
    (2004) The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society40: 239-256.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hopper, P
    (2011) Emergent Grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer , and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.22-44.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hopper, P.J. , and S.A. Thompson
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56: 251-299. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1984) The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language60.3: 703-752. doi: 10.1353/lan.1984.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0020 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kay, P. , and C.J. Fillmore
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations. The what’s X doing Y construction. Language75: 1-33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  54. Langacker, R.W
    (1981) The integration of grammar and grammatical change. Indian Linguistics42: 82– 135.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (1982) Space grammar, analyzability and the English passive. Language58: 22-80. doi: 10.2307/413531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413531 [Google Scholar]
  56. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. (2005) Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In M. Fried , and H.C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Back to the Roots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.157-189. doi: 10.1075/cal.4.11lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.11lan [Google Scholar]
  58. (2008) Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lindström, A
    (2005) Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen , and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.209-233. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.11lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.11lin [Google Scholar]
  60. Linell, P
    (1998) Approaching Dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2004) On some principles of a dialogical grammar. In K. Aijmer (ed.), Dialogue Analysis VIII: Understanding and misunderstanding in dialogue. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp.7-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2006) Towards a dialogical linguistics. In M. Lähteenmäki , et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the XII International Bakhtin Conference. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, pp.157-172.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Levinson, S.C
    (2006) On the human “interaction engine”. In N.J. Enfield , and S.C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp.39-69.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. (2013) Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell , and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp.103-130.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Mondada, L
    (2006) Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the close of the sequence. Discourse Studies8: 117-129. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059561
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059561 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies9: 195-226. doi: 10.1177/1461445607075346
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction42.4: 329-361. doi: 10.1080/08351810903296473
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296473 [Google Scholar]
  69. Morgan, M
    (1996) Conversational signifying: Grammar and indirectness among African American women. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff , and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.405-434. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.009 [Google Scholar]
  70. Ochs, E. , E.A. Schegloff , and S.A. Thompson
    (eds.) (1996) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ono, T. , and S.A. Thompson
    (1995) What can conversation tell us about syntax?In P.W. Davis (ed.), Alternative Linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.213-271. doi: 10.1075/cilt.102.07ono
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.102.07ono [Google Scholar]
  72. Östman, J.-O
    (2005) Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman , and M. Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.121-144. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  73. Sacks, H
    (1987) Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.21-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sacks, H. , and E.A. Schegloff
    (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., pp.15-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Schegloff, E.A
    (1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversations. In J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.28-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff , and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.52-133. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schegloff E.A
    (2005) On integrity in inquiry… of the investigated, not the investigator. Discourse Studies7.4–5: 455-480. doi: 10.1177/1461445605054402
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054402 [Google Scholar]
  78. Schegloff, E.A. , E. Ochs , and S.A. Thompson
    (1996) Introduction. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff , and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-51. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.001 [Google Scholar]
  79. Selting, M
    (1996) Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair. In E. Couper-Kuhlen , and M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.231-270. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
  80. Selting, M. , and E. Couper-Kuhlen
    (2001) Forschungsprogramm ‘Interaktionale Linguistik’. Linguistische Berichte187: 257-287.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Sinclair, J.M. , and A. Mauranen
    (2006) Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating speech and writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/scl.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.25 [Google Scholar]
  82. Streeck, J. , C. Goodwin , and C. LeBaron
    (eds.) (2011) Embodied Interaction. Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Thompson, S.A. , B.A. Fox , and E. Couper-Kuhlen
    (forthcoming) Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Verhagen, A
    (2009) The conception of constructions as complex signs: Emergence of structure and reduction to usage. Constructions and Frames1.1: 119-152. doi: 10.1075/cf.1.1.06ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.1.06ver [Google Scholar]
  85. Zlatev, J
    (2005) What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.313-342. doi: 10.1515/9783110197532.4.313
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.4.313 [Google Scholar]
  86. (2007) Embodiment, language and mimesis. In T. Ziemke , J. Zlatec , and R. Franck (eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Vol 1: Embodiment. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.297-337.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.01lau
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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