Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 5:1 (2024) ► pp.3155
References (47)
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do Language Learners Recognize Pragmatic Violations? Pragmatic versus Grammatical Awareness in Instructed L2 Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32 1, 233–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2020). Pedagogical linguistics. A view from L2 pragmatics. Pedagogical Linguistics, 1 (1), 44–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. (1998). Cancellative discourse markers. Pragmatics, 8 (4), 515–541.Google Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherchi, L. (1985). On the role of ellipsis in discourse coherence. In R. Meyer Hermann & H. Rieser (Eds.), Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke, Band 21 (pp. 224–249). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. Text & Talk, 32 (4), 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., Fox, B. & Thompson, S. (2014). Forms of responsivity: Grammatical formats for responding to two types of requests in conversation. In S. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and dialogism: sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation (pp. 109–138). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics. Studying language in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutrone, P. (2005). A case study examining backchannels between Japanese-British dyads. Multilingua, 24 1, 237–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2012). Über Sätze in Gesprächsbeiträgen – wann sie beginnen und wann man sie braucht. In C. Cortès (Ed.), Satzeröffnung. Formen, Funktionen, Strategien. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1–14.Google Scholar
(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
Dingemanse, M. (2020). Der Raum zwischen unseren Köpfen. Technology Review, 13 1, 10–15.Google Scholar
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (2010). Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 (2), 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2006). Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29 1, 315–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28 (3), 410–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gengel, K. (2013). Pseudogapping and ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, A. (2019). Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics, 146 1, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). The acquisition of pragmatic markers in the foreign language classroom: An experimental study on the effects of implicit and explicit learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 186 1, 73–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgreen, A. (2004). Testing the spoken English of young Norwegians: a study of test validity and the role of “smallwords” in contributing to pupils’ fluency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics, 57 1, 331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, S. & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (3), 171–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knobloch, C. (2013). „Ein Teil, das fehlt, geht nie kaputt.“ – Ellipsen in Grammatik und Kommunikation. In M. Hennig (Ed.), Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Problem (pp. 19–38). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20 1, 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Assisted storytelling: deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15 1, 247–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. In J. Holler, K. Kendrick, M. Casillas & S. Levinson (Eds.), Turn taking in human communicative interaction (pp. 10–26). Lausanne: Frontiers Media. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing in classroom second language acquisition. In Z. H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research in Language and Social Interaction, 36 (1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Spoken fluency revisited. English Profile Journal, 1 (1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp. 19–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). The development of cohesion in a learner corpus. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3 (1), 109–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (3), 105–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68 1, 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roll, M., Gosselke, S., Lindgren, M., & Horne, M. (2013). Time-driven effects on processing grammatical agreement. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 1, 1004. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation, 21 vols. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 1, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). “When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair”. Applied Linguistics, 21 1, 205–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53 1, 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schremm, A., Horne, M., & Roll, M. (2015). Brain responses to syntax constrained by time- driven implicit prosodic phrases. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 35 1, 68–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (2001). Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 229–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S., Fox, B., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkler, S. (2005). Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar