On the notion of unit in the study of human languages

References

1. Abraham, Werner & Leonid Kulikov
   (eds.) 1999 Tense-aspect, transitivity and causativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.50
   https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.50 [Google Scholar]
2. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting
   2018 Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Croft, William
   2001 Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
4. Crystal, David
   2008 A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. London: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444302776
   https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776 [Google Scholar]
5. Dryer, Matthew
   1997 Are grammatical relations universal?InJoan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 115–143. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.09dry
   https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.09dry [Google Scholar]
6. Englebretson, Robert
   2003 Searching for structure: The problem of complementation in colloquial Indonesian conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.13
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.13 [Google Scholar]
7. Englebretson, Robert
   2008 From subordinate clause to noun-phrase: yang constructions in colloquial Indonesian. InRitva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 1–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.03eng
   https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.03eng [Google Scholar]
8. Fillmore, Charles J.
   1974 Pragmatics and the description of discourse. InSiegfried J. Schmidt (ed.), Pragmatics II, 83–104. Munich: Fink.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
   2013 Units and/or action trajectories: The language of grammatical categories and the language or social action. InBeatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – Units of action, 13–56. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.02for
   https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
10. Fox, B., Thompson, S., C. Ford & E. Couper-Kuhlen
    2013 Conversation analysis in linguistics. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis, 726–740. New York: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
12. Haspelmath, Martin
    2018 How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. InDaniel van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds.), Aspects of Linguistic Variation., 83–114. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110607963‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110607963-004 [Google Scholar]
13. Hutchby, Ian & Robing Wooffitt
    2008 Conversation analysis. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Laury, Ritva & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2014 The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics24. 561–592. 10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.06lau [Google Scholar]
15. Linell, Per
    2005 The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203342763
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203342763 [Google Scholar]
16. Miller, Jim
    1995 Does spoken language have sentences. InF. R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 116–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620638.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.007 [Google Scholar]
17. Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert
    1998 Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Kimberly Jones
    2008 Conversation and Grammar: Approaching So-called Conditionals in Japanese. InJunko Mori & Amy Ohta, eds., Japanese Applied Linguistics: Discourse and Social Perspectives. London: Continuum International. 21–51.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
    1995 What can conversation tell us about syntax?InP. W. Davis (ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes, 405–434. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
    2009 Fixedness in Japanese adjectives in conversation: Toward a new understanding of a lexical (‘part-of-speech’) category. InRoberta Corrigan, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language, 117–145. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.82.06fix
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.06fix [Google Scholar]
21. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language50 (4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
22. Schegloff, E. A.
    1996 Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, S. Thompson & E. Schegloff (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
23. Szczepek-Reed, Beatrice & Geoff Raymond
    2013 Units of talk – Units of action. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25 [Google Scholar]
24. Tao, Hongyin
    2003 Units in Mandarin conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Thompson, Sandra A.
    2002 ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26 (1). 125–164. 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
26. Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies7 (4/5). 481–505. 10.1177/1461445605054403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]