1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 41, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

‘Negative scope’ concerns what it is that is negated in an utterance with a negative morpheme. With English and Japanese conversational data, we show that for an English speaker, calculating negative scope requires that recipients incrementally keep track of all the material in the clause that the negative morpheme, which comes early in the clause. In contrast, the negative morpheme comes late in the clause in Japanese; thus it would seem that recipients need to hold in memory all the material in the clause the negative until the negative morpheme is produced. Several features of Japanese grammar, however, suggest that this characterization is not accurate. We argue that prosody, grammar, cognition, processing, and fixedness all interact with the grammar of clause organization to afford quite different real-time processing strategies for calculating the assignment of negative scope in languages with different ‘word order’ norms.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
2017-10-25
2023-09-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    1996 On the prosody and syntax of turn-taking. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody and conversation, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25(1). 7–36. doi:  10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, Peter & Stefan Pfänder
    2011 Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110229080
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
    2013 From ‘intonation units’ to cesuring – an alternative approach to the prosodic-phonetic structuring of talk-in-interaction. InBeatrice Szczepek-Reed and Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 91–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.25.04bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.04bar [Google Scholar]
  5. 2016 Intonation units revisited – Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.29
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.29 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky
    2007 The wolf in sheep’s clothing: against a new judgement-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics33. 319–333. doi:  10.1515/TL.2007.021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.021 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, Joan
    2001 Frequency effects on French liaison. InJoan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.45.17byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.17byb [Google Scholar]
  9. 2002 Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. InT. Givon & Bertram Malle (eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.53.07byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.07byb [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper
    2001 Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan and Joanne Scheibman
    1999 The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics37(3). 575–596.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafe, Wallace
    1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. InRussell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  14. Clancy, Patricia
    1980 Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. InChafe, Wallace, ed., The pear stories, 127–202. Norwood: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Clancy, Patricia M., Noriko Akatsuka & Susan Strauss
    1997 Deontic modality and conditionality in discourse: a cross-linguistic study of adult speech to young children. InAkio Kamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 19–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.36.05cla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.36.05cla [Google Scholar]
  16. Clift, Rebecca
    2005 Discovering order. Lingua115. 1641–1665. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
    (eds.) 2007 Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective. Special issue, Pragmatics17(4).
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting
    . (In press). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cyffer, Norbert, Erwin Ebermann, and Georg Ziegelmeyer
    2009 Negation Patterns in West African Languages and Beyond. John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.87
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.87 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dahl, Östen
    1979 Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics17. 79–106. doi:  10.1515/ling.1979.17.1‑2.79
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Bussser, Rik & Randy J. LaPolla
    (eds.) 2015 Language structure and environment: social, cultural, and natural factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/clscc.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.6 [Google Scholar]
  22. Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner
    2015 Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe & Tyko Dirksmeyer
    2014 Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language38(1). 5–43. doi:  10.1075/sl.38.1.01din
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.1.01din [Google Scholar]
  24. Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    (eds.) 2014 Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.26
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26
  25. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2005 Negative morphemes. InMartin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures. [wals.info/].
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language63 (4), 805–855.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 2003 Discourse and grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol.2, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Du Bois, John, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cumming
    1993 Outline of discourse transcription. InJane A. Edwards & Martin D. Rampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Englebretson, Robert & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
    (eds.) 2014 Discourse participants in interaction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on subject expression and ellipsis. Special issue, Journal of Pragmatics63. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Erman, Britt & Beatrice Warren
    2000 The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text20(1). 29–62. doi:  10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  31. Featherston, Sam
    2007 Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics33. 269–318. doi:  10.1515/TL.2007.020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.020 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1989 Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. InR. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (eds.), Language processing in social context, 17–38. Amsterdam: North-Holland. doi:  10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑87144‑2.50004‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-87144-2.50004-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. 1996 The pragmatics of constructions. InDan I. Slobin (ed.), Social interaction, social context, and language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
    1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language64(3). 501–538. doi:  10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
    2013 Units or Action Trajectories?: Is the language of grammatical categories the language of social action?InBeatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 13–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.25.02for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  36. Ford, Cecilia E. & Junko Mori
    1994 Causal markers in Japanese and English conversations: a cross-linguistic study of interactional grammar. Pragmatics4(1). 31–62. doi:  10.1075/prag.4.1.03for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.4.1.03for [Google Scholar]
  37. Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. InElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 135–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  38. Fox, Barbara A.
    2001 An exploration of prosody and turn projection in English conversation. InMargret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 287–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/sidag.10.14fox
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.14fox [Google Scholar]
  39. Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi & Robert Jasperson
    1996 A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. InElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 185–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann
    2010 A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics42. 2487–2505. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Fry, John
    2003 Ellipsis and wa-marking in Japanese Conversation. Oxford: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Goodwin, Charles
    1981 Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. [available atwww.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/publish.htm].
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Goldberg, Adele
    2006 Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. InGeorge Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2002 Time in action. Current Anthropology43 (SupplementAugust – October 2002 – Special issue “Repertoires of Timekeeping in Anthropology). S-19–S35. doi:  10.1086/339566
     https://doi.org/10.1086/339566 [Google Scholar]
  46. Günthner, Susanne, Wolfgang Imo & Joerg Buecker
    (eds.) 2014 Grammar and dialogism. Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110358612
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110358612 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hakulinen, Auli and Margret Selting
    eds. 2005 Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/sidag.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  48. Han, Chung-Hye, Dennis Ryan Storoshenko & Yasuko Sakurai
    2004 Scope of negation, and clause structure in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society30. 118–129. doi:  10.3765/bls.v30i1.955
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v30i1.955 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hasegawa, Yoko
    2015 Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139507127
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507127 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hayashi, M.
    2004 Projection and grammar: notes on the ‘action-projecting’ use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics36(8). 1337–1374. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hinds, John
    1980 Japanese conversation, discourse structure, and ellipsis. Discourse Processes3. 263–286. doi:  10.1080/01638538009544490
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538009544490 [Google Scholar]
  52. 1982 Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hopper, Paul J.
    1992 Times of the sign: on temporality in recent linguistics. Time and Society1(2). 223–238. doi:  10.1177/0961463X92001002006
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X92001002006 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hopper, Paul
    2001 Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. InJoan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 145–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2011a Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. InPeter Auer & Stefan Pfander (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110229080.22
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hopper, Paul J.
    2011b Emergent grammar. InJames Gee & Michael Handford, The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 301–314. Oxford: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson
    2008 Projectability and clause combining in interaction. InRitva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: the multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  58. Horn, Laurence R.
    1989 A natural history of negation. Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  60. Iwasaki, Shimako
    2009 Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes456. 226–246. doi:  10.1080/01638530902728918
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2011 The multimodal mechanics of collaborative unit construction in Japanese conversation, inEmbodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, edsJurgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin and Curtis LeBaron, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp.106-120.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Iwasaki, Shoichi
    1993 The structure of the intonation unit in Japanese. InSoonja Choi (ed.), Japanese and Korean linguistics, vol.III, 39–53. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Iwasaki, Shoichi & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2002 “Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. InJoan Bybee and Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 175–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.110.10iwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.110.10iwa [Google Scholar]
  64. Iwasaki, Shoichi and Hongyin Tao
    1993 A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 1993.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Jones, Kimberly & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2008 Conversation and grammar: Approaching so-called conditionals in Japanese. InJ. Mori & A. Ohta (eds.), Japanese applied linguistics: Discourse and social perspectives, 21–52. London: Continuum International.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    1996 Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics25. 675–701. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00010‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00010-0 [Google Scholar]
  67. Keevallik, Leelo
    2011 Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes48(6). 404–431. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2011.559150
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.559150 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kishimoto, Hideki
    2008 On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics44(2). 379–435. doi:  10.1017/S0022226708005161
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226708005161 [Google Scholar]
  69. Labov, William
    1972 Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society1(1). 97–120. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500006576
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006576 [Google Scholar]
  70. 1975 Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. InRobert Austerlitz (ed.), The scope of American linguistics, 77–133. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. doi:  10.1515/9783110857610‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857610-006 [Google Scholar]
  71. 1996 When intuitions fail. InK. McNair, L. Dolbrin & M. Aucon (eds.), Papers from the parasession on theory and data in linguistics, Chicago Linguistic Society32: 77–105. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Marianne Celce-Murcia
    2015 The grammar book. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Laury, Ritva, Camilla Lindholm & Jan Lindström
    2013 Syntactically non-integrated conditional clauses in spoken Finnish and Swedish. InEva Havu & Irma Hyvärinen (eds.), Comparing and contrasting syntactic structures. From dependency to quasi-subordination, Vol.LXXXVI, 231–270. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Laury, Ritva & Tsuyoshi Ono
    2010 Recursion in conversation: What speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do. InH. van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and human language, 69–91. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110219258.69
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219258.69 [Google Scholar]
  75. Laury, Ritva & Ryoko Suzuki
    (eds.) 2011 Subordination in conversation: a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.24
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24 [Google Scholar]
  76. Liddicoat, A. J.
    2004 The projectability of turn constructional units and the role of prediction in listening. Discourse Studies6(4). 449–469. doi:  10.1177/1461445604046589
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604046589 [Google Scholar]
  77. Lindblom, Bjorn, Peter MacNeilage, and Michael Studdert-Kennedy
    1984 Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. InB. Butterworth, B. Comrie, and O. Dahl, (eds), Explanations for Language Universals, 181–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Linebarger, M. A.
    1987 Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistic and Philosophy10. 325–387. doi:  10.1007/BF00584131
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00584131 [Google Scholar]
  79. Linell, Per
    2005 The written language bias in linguistics: its nature, origins, and transformation. Oxford: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203342763
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203342763 [Google Scholar]
  80. 2009 Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 2013 The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: Processes and resources. InBeatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slsi.25.03lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.03lin [Google Scholar]
  82. Martin, Samuel E.
    1975 A reference grammar of Japanese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Maruyama, Akiyo
    2003 Japanese wa in conversational discourse: a contrast marker. Studies in Language27(2). 245–285. doi:  10.1075/sl.27.2.03mar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.2.03mar [Google Scholar]
  84. Maschler, Yael
    2011 On the emergence of adverbial connectives from Hebrew relative clause constructions. InPeter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: emerging and emergent, 293–331. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110229080.293
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.293 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2012 Emergent projecting constructions: The case of He-brew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language36(4). 785–847. doi:  10.1075/sl.36.4.03mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.4.03mas [Google Scholar]
  86. 2015 Word order in time: emergent Hebrew (NS)V/VNS syntax. InArnulf Depperman & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in interaction, 201–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Matsumoto, Kazuko
    2003 Intonation units in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.65
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.65 [Google Scholar]
  88. Maynard, Senko K.
    1989 Japanese conversation: self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. McGloin, Naomi
    1986 Negation in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Boreal Scholarly Publishers and Distributors, Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Miller, J.
    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. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620638.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.007 [Google Scholar]
  91. Miller, J. & R. Weinert
    1998 Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Nagata, Hiroshi
    1988 The relativity of linguistic intuition: the effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research17(1). 1–17. doi:  10.1007/BF01067178
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067178 [Google Scholar]
  93. Nihongo Bunkei Jiten [A dictionary of Japanese sentence patterns] 1998 Tokyo: Kurosio.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Okamoto, Shigeko
    1988 A discourse-based analysis of complementation in Japanese. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, 223–235.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sadler, Misumi
    2001 The Status of ‘Canonical’ Transitive Clauses in Japanese Conversations. 11th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko Suzuki
    . (Forthcoming). Exploration into a new understanding of ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese everyday talk. InTsuyoshi Ono and Ritva Laury eds. Fixed expressions: Building language structure and action.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
    1994 Unattached NPs in English conversation. Berkeley Linguistics Society20. 402–419. doi:  10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1477 [Google Scholar]
  98. 1995 What can conversation tell us about syntax?InP. Davis (ed.), Descriptive and theoretical modes in the new linguistics, 213–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 1997 Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’. BLS23. 481–491. doi:  10.3765/bls.v23i1.1259
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1259 [Google Scholar]
  100. 2003 Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku: they’re not just pronouns. Cognitive Linguistics14(4). 321–347. doi:  10.1515/cogl.2003.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2003.013 [Google Scholar]
  101. 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: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.82.06fix
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.06fix [Google Scholar]
  102. Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson & Yumi Sasaki
    2012 Japanese negotiation through emerging final particles in everyday talk. Discourse Processes49(3–4). 243–272. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2012.664759
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664759 [Google Scholar]
  103. Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
    1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Reinhart, Tanya
    1976 The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, M.A.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Doctoral dissertation. (Available online atdspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16400).
  105. Rooth, Mats
    1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1. 75–116. doi:  10.1007/BF02342617
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  106. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. doi:  10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  107. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1982 Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. InDeborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: text and talk, 71–93. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Scheibman, Joanne
    2000  I dunno… a usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. JP32. 105–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Schütze, Carson T.
    2007 The empirical basis of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Barden, Bergmann, Couper-Kuhlen, Gunthner, Meier, Quasthoff, Schlobinsky & Uhmann
    1998 Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte173: 91–122. GAT – English edition: agd.ids-mannheim.de/html/gat_en.shtml.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    eds. 2001 Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/sidag.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  112. Shibatani, M.
    1990 The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Streeck, J.
    1995 On projection. InE. N. Goody (ed.), Social intelligence and interaction, 87–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511621710.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621710.007 [Google Scholar]
  114. Tanabe, Toshifumi, Masahito Takahashi & Kosho Shudo
    2014 A lexicon of multiword expressions for linguistically precise, wide-coverage natural language processing. Computer Speech and Language28. 1317–1339. doi:  10.1016/j.csl.2013.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2013.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  115. Tanaka, Hiroko
    1999 Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: a study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 2000 Turn-projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on language and social interaction33(1). 1–38. doi:  10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1 [Google Scholar]
  117. 2001 Adverbials for turn projection in Japanese: toward a demystification of the “telepathic” mode of communication. Language in Society30. 559–587. doi:  10.1017/S004740450100402X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450100402X [Google Scholar]
  118. 2005 Grammar and the timing of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society34(3). 389–430. doi:  10.1017/S0047404505050141
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404505050141 [Google Scholar]
  119. Thompson, Sandra A.
    1998 A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. InAnna Siewierska & Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case, typology, and grammar, 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.38.17tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.38.17tho [Google Scholar]
  120. Thompson, Sandra A., Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Barbara A. Fox
    2015 Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139381154
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  121. Wray, Alison
    2002 Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511519772
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
Loading
Negative scope, temporality, fixedness, and right- and left-branching
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 41, 543 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conversation; English; fixedness; grammar; Japanese; negative scope; prosody; 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