Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


This study elaborates the concept of a positionally sensitive grammar with respect to the sequentiality of turns and the turn constructional units in conversation. The linguistic object of the analysis is clausal constructions in Swedish that are initiated by the finite predicate verb: Polar questions, receipt questions (news receipts), conditional protases and pro-drop declaratives. These constructions share potentially the same syntactic surface pattern but are constrained by different sequential conditions of use. The study proposes an integrated interactional linguistic analysis which takes into account both syntactic and sequential aspects of turn construction. A grammatical attribute-value matrix, based on the framework of construction grammar (CxG), is introduced. The analysis shows that regularities of sequential organization may provide robust distinctive constructional features while a pure syntactic analysis remains less distinctive. The decisive constructional features are systematically captured by a notation designed for sequential and syntactic organization.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Auer, Peter
    (1993) Zur Verbspitzenstellung im gesprochenen Deutsch. [On verb initial placement in spoken German]. Deutsche Sprache21:3: 193-222.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (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, Peter , and Jan Lindström
    (2011) Verb-first conditionals in German and Swedish: Convergence in writing, divergence in speaking. In P. Auer , and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp.218-262.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, Peter , and Susanne Günthner
    (2003) Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? [The emergence of discourse markers in German – a case of grammaticalization?] InList – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, No. 38, December2003. <www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/38/index.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    (this volume)What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics24.3: 623-647.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Tsuyoshi Ono
    (2007) ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics17: 513-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Margret Selting
    (2001) Introducing interactional linguistics. In M. Selting , and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.1-22. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.02cou [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Sandra A. Thompson
    (2012) Left-right asymmetries: The grammar of pro-repeat responses to informings in English conversation. Paper presented in aworkshop on Left/Right Asymmetries in Talk. Freiburg: Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies, May16, 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Diderichsen, Paul
    (1946) Elementær dansk Grammatik. [Elementary Danish grammar]. København: Gyldendal.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Diessel, Holger
    (1997) Verb-first constructions in German. In M. Verspoor , K.D. Lee , and E. Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.51-68. doi: 10.1075/cilt.150.07die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.150.07die [Google Scholar]
  12. Ford, Cecilia E. , and Sandra, A. Thompson
    (1996) Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff , and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.134-184. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, Barbara A. , and Sandra A. Thompson
    (2010) Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction43.2: 133-156. doi: 10.1080/08351811003751680
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003751680 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fried, Mirjam , and Jan-Ola Östman
    (2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried , and J-O. Östman (eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language-perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.11-86. doi: 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  15. (2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics37: 1752-1778. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  16. Günthner, Susanne , and Wolfgang Imo
    (eds.) (2006) Konstruktionen in der Interaktion [Construction in interaction]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110894158
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894158 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hopper, Paul J
    (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]
  18. Huhtamäki, Martina
    (2012) Prosodiska mönster hos frågor. En undersökning av Helsingforssvenska samtal. [Prosodic patterns in questions. A study of Helsinki Swedish conversations]. Språk och Stil22.2: 153-184.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Karlsson, Susanna
    (2006) Positioneringsfraser i interaktion. [Positioning phrases in interaction]. Göteborg: Göteborgsstudier i nordisk språkvetenskap 5.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Laury, Ritva
    (ed.) (2008) Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining. The multifunctionality of conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/tsl.80
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lindström, Jan
    (2006) Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish. Research on Language and Social Interaction39.1: 81-117. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_4 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2008) Tur och ordning. Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. [Turn and order. An introduction into Swedish conversational grammar]. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindström, Jan , & Susanna Karlsson
    (2005) Verb-first constructions as a syntactic and functional resource in (spoken) Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics28: 97-131. doi: 10.1017/S0332586505001332
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586505001332 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lindström, Jan , and Anne-Marie Londen
    (2008) Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (ed.), Constructional reorganization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.105-152. doi: 10.1075/cal.5.06lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.06lin [Google Scholar]
  25. Linell, Per
    (2003) Responsiva konstruktioner i samtalsspråkets grammatik. [Responsive constructions in the grammar of conversational language]. Folkmålsstudier42: 11-39.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2005) The written language bias in linguistics. Its nature, origins and transformations. London & New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203342763
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203342763 [Google Scholar]
  27. Linell, Per , Johan Hofvendahl , and Camilla Lindholm
    (2003) Multi-unit question turns in institutional interactions: Sequential organizations and communicative functions. Text23-4: 539-571.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mörnsjö, Maria
    (2002) V1 declaratives in spoken Swedish. Syntax, information structure, and prosodic pattern. Lund: Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Norén, Niklas
    (2010) Pronominella returfrågor i tre vardagliga svenska samtal. [Pronominal return questions in three everyday conversations]. In C. Lindholm , and J. Lindström (eds.), Språk och interaktion 2. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, pp.29-71.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ono, Tsuyoshi , and Sandra A. Thompson
    (1995) What can conversation tell us about syntax?In P.W. Davis (ed.), Descriptive and theoretical modes in alternative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.213-271. doi: 10.1075/cilt.102.07ono
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.102.07ono [Google Scholar]
  31. Östman, Jan-Ola
    (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]
  32. (2007) On formalizing ‘context’. Or, why complexity does not equal impossibility. In J. Härmä , E. Havu , M. Helkkula , M. Larjavaara , M. Lehtinen , and U. Tuomarla (eds.), SILF 2005. Actes du XXIXème Colloque International de Linguistique Fonctionnelle. Helsinki: Département des langues romanes de l’Université de Helsinki, pp.205-212.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Platzack, Christer
    (1987) The case of narrative inversion in Swedish and Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax31: 9-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Raymond, Geoffrey
    (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68: 939-967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50: 696-735. doi: 10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    (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]
  37. Searle, John
    (1975) Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole , and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.59-82.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Steensig, Jakob
    (2001a) Sprog i virkeligheden. Bidrag til en interaktionel lingvistik. [Language in the reality. Contributions to an interactional linguistics]. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2001b) Notes on turn-construction methods in Danish and Turkish conversation. In M. Selting , and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.259-286. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.13ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.13ste [Google Scholar]
  40. Teleman, Ulf , Staffan Hellberg , and Erik Andersson
    (1999) Svenska Akademiens grammatik. [The Swedish Academy’s grammar], volume 4. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, Sandra A. , Barbara A. Fox , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    (forthcoming) Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wide, Camilla
    (2009) Interactional Construction Grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs , and G. Diewald (eds.), Context and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.111-142. doi: 10.1075/cal.9.06wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.06wid [Google Scholar]
  43. (2014) The functions of subjectless declarative main clauses in spoken Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics63: 35-47. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.012 [Google Scholar]
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