Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2021) ► pp.6489
Aichenvald, A.
(2012) The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16,3:435–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P.
(2000) On-line-Syntax, oder was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der gesprochenen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur 851:43–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) On line syntax: some thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 311:1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and Latency. In A. Deppermann and S. Günthner (Eds.), 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D.
(2014) Dialogism and the emergence of final particles: The case of and . In S. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation, 335–66. Berlin: De Gruyter. (Linguistik: Impulse & Tendenzen, 61) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2011) Action, prosody and emergent constructions: the case of and . In P. Auer & S. Pfänder, Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 263–292. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolduc, M. K. & Frank, D. A.
(2010) Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s ‘On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation’: Commentary and Translation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (4): 308–315.Google Scholar
Collins, P. C.
(1994) Cleft and Pseudocleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S.
(1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 11: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Günthner, S.
(2015) Introduction: Temporality in interaction. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction, 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N.
(2000–2005) The Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.
(2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25,3: 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fielder, G. E.
(2008) Bulgarian adversative connectives: Conjunctions or discourse particles? In R. Laury (Ed.), 79–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1993) English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, Volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, M.
(2020) Speech Acts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [URL] Accessed November 14, 2020.
Günthner, S.
(2011) Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In P. Auer and S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emergent and Emerging, 156–185. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) A temporally oriented perspective on connectors in interaction: und zwar (‘namely/in fact’) constructions in everyday German conversations. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction, 237–264. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 237–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., & Hopper, P. J.
(2010) Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Struktur: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung 111:1–28. [URL]
Haiman, J.
(1978) Conditionals are topics. Language 541:565–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(Ed.) (2004) Coordinating Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language 58) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1987) Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society 131:139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance? In M. Pütz & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, Acquisition, and Language Pedagogy 109–30. Berlin: Mouton/De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In J. Bybee and M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse, 145–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 401:153–175.Google Scholar
(2007) Emergent serialization in English: Pragmatics and typology. In J. Good (Ed.), Language Universals and Language Change, 520–554. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Emergent Grammar. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 301–315. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2019) Timely Notes on Saussure and Hermann Paul after 1968. In H. Boas & M. Pierce (Eds.), New Directions in Historical Linguistics, 78–109. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Kenneth
(1998) Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18,3:349–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L.
(2020) Grammatical coordination of embodied action: The Estonian ja ‘and’ as a temporal organizer of Pilates moves. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of action, 221–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T.
(2004) Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R.
(1971) If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In C. J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 115–149. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Laury, R.
(Ed.) (2008) Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y.
(2015) Word order in time: Hebrew (Ns)V/VNs syntax. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), 201–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A.
(1988) The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 275–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, H.
(1920) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 51. Auflage. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. & Syder, F. H.
(2000) The one clause at a time hypothesis. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 163–199. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1958) De la temporalité comme caractère de l’argumentation. Archivio di filosofia 28 (2): 115–33.Google Scholar
Prince, E.
(1978) A comparison of WH- and IT clefts in discourse. Language 541:883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1986) Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 101:41–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S.
(1974) Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics 31:211–231. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Hopper, P. J.
(2009) Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction. In R. Laury, (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining 99–123. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar