Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2021) ► pp.2–32

Linguistic structures in social interaction

Moving temporality to the forefront of a science of language

ORCID logo | University of Queensland
| Université de Neuchâtel
In this introductory paper to the inaugural volume of the journal Interactional Linguistics, we raise the question of what a theory of language might look like once we factor time into explanations of regularities in linguistic phenomena. We first present a historical overview that contextualises interactional approaches within the broader field of linguistics, and then focus on temporality as a key dimension of language use in interaction. By doing so, we discuss issues of emergence and its consequences for constituency and dependency, and of projection and its relation to action formation within and across languages. Based on video-recorded conversational data from French and Garrwa (Australian), we seek to illustrate how the discipline of linguistics can be enriched by attending to the temporal deployment of patterns of language use, and how this may in turn modify what we understand to be language structure.
Keywords: interactional linguistics, temporality, emergence, projection, French, Garrwa
Article outline
  • 1.Just in time: Aspirations for a journal of interactional linguistic research
  • 2.Where does interactional linguistics fit within linguistic theory?
    • 2.1Functional approaches to linguistic structure
    • 2.2The study of language use in social interaction
  • 3.Emergence, constituency and dependency
  • 4.Projection and word order typologies
    • 4.1Grammatical projection and the social coordination of actions
    • 4.2Typological issues in projection
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 6 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21008.mus
References (138)
References
Auer, P. (1998). Zwischen Parataxe und Hypotaxe: ‘abhängige Hauptsätze’ im gesprochenen und geschriebenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 1998, 284–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). On line-Syntax – oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur. 851, 43–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 180–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1976). In How to do things with words (2nd ed. edited by J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2009). Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with the parallel-opposition construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2271–2294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belfrage, H. (1992). Aspects of verb and pronoun morphology, semantics and syntax in Garrwa [Honours]. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Blythe, J. (2009). Doing referring in Murriny Patha conversation. PhD Dissertation: [University of Sydney].Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Communities, commonalities, and communication. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 324–355). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2007). Grammar in time: the non-restrictive ‘which’-clause as an interactional resource. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 551, 51–82.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause-combining in discourse: The case of because . Pragmatics, 6(2), 389–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Grammaticization and conversation. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 424–437). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes, 491, 273–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. (2008). On assessing situations and events in conversation: “extraposition” and its relatives. Discourse Studies, 10(4), 443–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2016). Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology, 20(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2013). Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S. (Eds.) (2015). Temporality in interaction (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Longitudinal Conversation Analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., Gísladóttir, R., Kendrick, K. H., Levinson, S. C., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J. (2015). Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS One, 10(9), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Basic linguistic theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. (2006). Descriptive theories, explanatory theories and Basic Linguistic Theory. In F. K. Ameka, A. Dench, & N. Evans (Eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing (pp. 207–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In M. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]
Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A., & Ochs, E. (1979). Left dislocation in Italian conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 377–416). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nicolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ewing, M. C. (2019). The predicate as a locus of grammar and interaction in colloquial Indonesian. Studies in Language, 43(2), 402–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Torreira, F. (2016). Timing of visual bodily behavior in repair sequences: Evidence from three languages. Discourse Processes, 53(3), 175–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, W. A. (1976). Comparative syntax in Austronesian [PhD Dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Constituency and turn increments. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turns and Sequences. London: Oxford University Press, 14–38.Google Scholar
Fox, B. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1992). From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction. On left-dislocation in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Ch. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). Irvington.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers / Charles Goodwin. In Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, Ch. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 621, 51–75.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2002). Time in action. Current Anthropology 43 (S4), 19–35.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts [ Syntax and Semantics 3 ] (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Was ihn trieb, war vor allem Wanderlust” (Hesse: Narziss und Goldmund): Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 59–90). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. & Hopper, P. J. (2010). Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung-Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 111, 1–28.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language / John Haiman. In Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2004). Projection and grammar: notes on the “action-projecting” use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1337–1374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmer, H., Reinke, S. & Deppermann, A. 2016. A range of uses of negative epistemic constructions in German: Ich weiss nicht as a resource for dispreferred actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 1061, 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction (pp. 255–280). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (Eds.) (2018). Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder, (Eds.). Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 22–44). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60(4), 703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 99–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2011). The terms of not knowing. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 184–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Grammatical coordination of embodied action: The Estonian ja ‘and’ as a temporal coordinator of Pilates moves. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindstöm, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent syntax for conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action (p. 221–244). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol.21: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Laughren, M., Pensalfini, R., & Mylne, T. (2005). Accounting for verb-initial order in an Australian language. In A. Carnie, H. Harley, & S. A. Dooley (Eds.), Verb First: On the syntax of verb-initial languages (Vol. 731, pp. 367–401). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. (1997). Demonstratives in interaction: the emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Absterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Syntactically non-integrated Finnish jos ‘if’ conditional clauses as directives. Discourse Processes, 491, 213–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. & Okamoto, S. (2011). Teyuuka and I mean as pragmatic parentheticals in Japanese and English. In Laury, R. & Suzuki, R. (eds.), Subordination in conversation (pp. 209–230). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. & Suzuki, R. (Eds.) (2011). Subordination in conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20(3), 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1960). La Pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics / Stephen C. Levinson. In Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., Laury, R. & Lindholm, C. (2019). Insubordination and the contextually sensitive emergence of if-requests in Swedish and Finnish institutional talk-in-interaction. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck, & M. S. Sansiñena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 55–78). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Luke, K., Thompson, S. A. & Ono, T. (2012). Turns and increments: A comparative perspective. Discourse Processes, 49(3–4), 155–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language aquisition (pp. 249–308). Mahawa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y., & Fishman, S. (2020). From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- ‘what that’ construction in pseudo-cleft-like structures. Journal of Pragmatics, 1591, 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, J., & Keevallik, L. (Eds.). (2020). Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Ch. & Thompson, S. (1988). The structure of discourse and “subordination”. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. (Eds.), Clause-combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 275–333). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (1992). Is basic word order universal? In D. L. Payne (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 195–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, I. (1995). Epistememes in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005, October). Second Position Clitic Phenomena in North-Central Australia: Some Pragmatic Considerations.Google Scholar
(2006). Motivations for second position: Evidence from North-Central Australia. Linguistic Typology, 10(3), 287–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Code-Switching as an Interactional Resource in Garrwa/Kriol Talk-in-Interaction. Australian Journal of Linguistics: Studies in Australian Indigenous Conversation, 30(4), 471–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). A grammar of (Western) Garrwa. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Liminal pronoun systems: Evidence from Garrwa. In R. Pensalfini, M. Turpin, & D. Guillemin (Eds.), Studies in Language Companion Series (pp. 99–122). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a). Grammaticalization and typology in Australian Aboriginal languages. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Diverging from ‘business as usual’: Turn-initial ngala in Garrwa conversation. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction (pp. 119–154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2016). Formal and functional explanation. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar (pp. 128–152). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2013). Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(3), 299–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2020). The “Noun Phrase” across languages: An emergent unit in interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, D. L. (1990). The pragmatics of word order: Typological dimensions of verb initial languages. In D. L. Payne (Ed.), The pragmatics of word order: Typological dimensions of verb initial languages. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: projector constructions in French conversation. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: a crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 103–148). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). More than an epistemic hedge: French je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequential organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 1061, 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: the development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). At the interface of grammar and the body. Chais pas ‘dunno’ as a resource for dealing with lack of recipient response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(4), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Word-order affects response latency: Action projection and the timing of responses to question-word questions. Discourse Processes. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthc.). How grammar grows out of social interaction: From multi-unit to single unit question. Open Linguistics. [URL]
Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). Time and emergence in grammar: Left-dislocation, right-dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita and John Heritage. 2013. Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1972 [1916]). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996a). Confirming allusion: toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). On turns’ possible completion, more or less: increments and trail-offs. Paper delivered at the 1st Euroconference on Interactional Linguistics, Spa, Belgium.
(2016). Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 238–263). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. (1976). Conversations with a one year old. A case study of the developmental foundation of syntax. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language / John R. Searle. In Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 31, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 291, 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 483–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2001). Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2017). Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoenica, I. M. (2020). Actions et conduites mimo-gestuelles dans l’usage conversationnel des relatives en français. Berne: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoenica, I-M., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Horlacher, A-S. (2020). Emergent complex NPs: On-line trajectories of ‘relativized’ NPs in French talk-in-interaction. In T. Ono & S. Thompson (Eds.), The ‘Noun Phrase’ across languages: An emergent unit in interaction (pp. 43–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (2009). Forward-gesturing. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 161–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., & Jordan, S. (Eds.). (2009). Projection and anticipation in embodied interaction [Special issue]. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3).Google Scholar
Tanaka, H. (2005). Grammar and the “timing” of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society, 34(03). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2019). Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. Studies in Language, 43(2), 254–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse studies, 7(4–5), 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 313–329). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based approach to child language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2008. All that he endeavoured to prove was…: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogal and dialogic contexts. In R. Kempson & R. Cooper (Eds.), Language in glux: variation, change and evolution (pp. 219–250). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1977). Aspects of Lakhota syntax [PhD Dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Au-Yeung, Terry S. H. & Richard Fitzgerald
2023. Time structures in ethnomethodological and conversation analysis studies of practical activity. The Sociological Review 71:1 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Greer, Tim
2023. Grammar-in-Interaction and its place in assessing interactional competence. Applied Pragmatics 5:2 ► pp. 202 ff. DOI logo
Nanbu, Zachary & Tim Greer
2023. Creating Obstacles to Progressivity: Task Expansion in Second Language Role‐Plays. TESOL Quarterly 57:4 ► pp. 1364 ff. DOI logo
Eiswirth, Mirjam Elisabeth & Felix Bergmann
2022. Variation and change in the sociophonetic variable ing in format ties. Interactional Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
GREER, TIM & ZACHARY NANBU
2022. Visualizing Emergent Turn Construction: Seeing Writing While Speaking. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
HALL, JOAN KELLY
2022. L2 Classroom Input and L2 Positionally Sensitive Grammars: The Role of Information‐Seeking Question Sequences. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
LARSEN–FREEMAN, DIANE
2022. Combinations and Connections: Reaching Across Disciplinary Boundaries. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo
Maschler, Yael & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2022. Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-body interface. Lingua 280 ► pp. 103397 ff. DOI logo
PEKAREK DOEHLER, SIMONA & SØREN W. ESKILDSEN
2022. Emergent L2 Grammars in and for Social Interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
PEKAREK DOEHLER, SIMONA & KLARA SKOGMYR MARIAN
2022. Functional Diversification and Progressive Routinization of a Multiword Expression in and for Social Interaction: A Longitudinal L2 Study. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
PIIRAINEN–MARSH, ARJA & NIINA LILJA
2022. Learning Grammar for Social Action: Implications for Research and Language Teaching. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Raymond, Chase Wesley
2022. Suffixation and sequentiality. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2021. Dialogue. Language and Dialogue 11:3 ► pp. 457 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.