Cover not available
Article published In:
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
Edited by Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Pragmatics 24:3] 2014
► pp. 435–452

Introduction

Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.01lau
References
Anward, J
(2003) On recursivity. Clauses in a dialogical grammar of Swedish. In L.-O. Delsing, C. Falk, G. Josefsson, and H. Sigurδsson (eds.), Grammatik i fokus. Festskrift till Christer Platzack. [Grammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack]. Vol. 2. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk, pp. 17-23.Google Scholar
Auer, P
(2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25.1: 7-36.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 311: 1-13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., E. Couper-Kuhlen, and F. Müller
(1999) Language in Time: The rhythm and tempo of spoken interaction. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., and S. Pfänder
(2011) Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In P. Auer, and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: pp. 1-21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.) (2011) Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mourton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M., and S. Kemmer
(2000) Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., E. Reber, and M. Selting
(eds.) (2011) Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C
(1990) Un modèle d’analyse syntaxique “en grilles„ pour les productions orales. Anuario de Psicologia 471: 11-28.Google Scholar
Bybee, J
(1998) The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 341: The Panels. pp. 421-435.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., and S.A. Thompson
(1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 231: 378-388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W
(1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P
(1980) Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 127-202.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., and M. Selting
(eds.) (2001) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., and C.E Ford
(eds.) (2004) Sound Patterns in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, S., T. Ono, and R. Laury
(2011) Discourse, grammar and interaction. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies. 2nd edition. London: Sage, pp. 8-35.Google Scholar
Curl, T.S
(2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 381: 1257-1280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, T.S., and P. Drew
(2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41.2: 129-153. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A
(2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen, and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 289-317. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Construction Grammar - eine Grammatik für die Interaktion? In A. Deppermann, R. Fiehler, and T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, pp. 43-65.Google Scholar
(2006b) Konstitution von Wortbedeutung im Gespräch: Eine Studie am Beispiel des jugendsprachlichen Bewertungsadjektivs assi . In A. Deppermann, and T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Bedeuten: Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 158-184.Google Scholar
(2011a) The study of formulations as a key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies 34. 2: 115-128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings. A comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In P. Auer, and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 88-126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., R. Fiehler, and T. Spranz-Fogasy
(eds.) (2006) Grammatik und Interaktion. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung[URL]Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W
(1985) Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 343-365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J
(2001) Towards a dialogic syntax. Ms. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Evans, V., and M. Green
(2006) Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., P. Kay, and M.K. O’Connor
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of let alone. Language 641: 501-538. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ford, C.E
(1993) Grammar in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C.E., B.A. Fox, and S.A. Thompson
(eds.) (2002) The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B.A
(2000) Micro-syntax in English conversation. Paper presented at the conference Interactional Linguistics (sponsored by EURESCO), September, Spa, Belgium.
(2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 91: 299-318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B.A., M. Hayashi, and R. Jasperson
(1996) A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. Interaction and grammar. E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B.A., S.A. Thompson, C.E. Ford, and E. Couper-Kuhlen
(2013) Conversation analysis in linguistics. In J. Sidnell, and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 726-740.Google Scholar
Fried, M., and J.-O. Östman
(eds.) (2004) Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., and J. Bücker
(eds.) (2009) Grammatik im Gespräch. Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., and W. Imo
(eds.) (2006) Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hacohen, G., and E.A. Schegloff
(2006) On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 381: 1305-1312. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A
(1989) Keskusteluntutkimuksen tavoitteista ja menetelmistä [On the aims and methods of conversation analysis]. In A. Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I [Ways of Finnish conversation I]. Kieli 4. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki, pp. 9-40.Google Scholar
(1996) Keskustelunanalyysin profiilista ja tilasta [On the profile and state of conversation analysis]. In A. Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja II [Ways of Finnish conversation II]. Kieli 10. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki, pp. 9-22.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., and M. Selting
(eds.) (2005) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hausendorf, H
(ed.) (2007) Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Heinemann, T
(2006) ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 381: 1081-1104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P
(1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 131: 139-157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 155-175.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J
(2004) The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 401: 239-256.Google Scholar
Hopper, P
(2011) Emergent Grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer, and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 22-44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J., and S.A. Thompson
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561: 251-299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984) The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60.3: 703-752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., and C.J. Fillmore
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations. The what’s X doing Y construction. Language 751: 1-33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1981) The integration of grammar and grammatical change. Indian Linguistics 42: 82– 135.Google Scholar
(1982) Space grammar, analyzability and the English passive. Language 581: 22-80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In M. Fried, and H.C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Back to the Roots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 157-189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A
(2005) Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen, and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 209-233. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Linell, P
(1998) Approaching Dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2004) On some principles of a dialogical grammar. In K. Aijmer (ed.), Dialogue Analysis VIII: Understanding and misunderstanding in dialogue. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 7-23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Towards a dialogical linguistics. In M. Lähteenmäki, et al.. (eds.), Proceedings of the XII International Bakhtin Conference. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, pp. 157-172.Google Scholar
(2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C
(2006) On the human “interaction engine”. In N.J. Enfield, and S.C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp. 39-69.Google Scholar
(2013) Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell, and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 103-130.Google Scholar
Mondada, L
(2006) Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the close of the sequence. Discourse Studies 81: 117-129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 91: 195-226. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42.4: 329-361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M
(1996) Conversational signifying: Grammar and indirectness among African American women. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 405-434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson
(eds.) (1996) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ono, T., and S.A. Thompson
(1995) What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P.W. Davis (ed.), Alternative Linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 213-271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O
(2005) Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman, and M. Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 121-144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H
(1987) Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-27.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., and E.A. Schegloff
(1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., pp. 15-21.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
(1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversations. In J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28-52.Google Scholar
(1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52-133. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff E.A
(2005) On integrity in inquiry… of the investigated, not the investigator. Discourse Studies 7.4–51: 455-480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., E. Ochs, and S.A. Thompson
(1996) Introduction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-51. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Selting, M
(1996) Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, and M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231-270. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., and E. Couper-Kuhlen
(2001) Forschungsprogramm ‘Interaktionale Linguistik’. Linguistische Berichte 1871: 257-287.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.M., and A. Mauranen
(2006) Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating speech and writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., C. Goodwin, and C. LeBaron
(eds.) (2011) Embodied Interaction. Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A., B.A. Fox, and E. Couper-Kuhlen
forthcoming) Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo
Zlatev, J
(2005) What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 313-342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Embodiment, language and mimesis. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatec, and R. Franck (eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Vol 1: Embodiment. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 297-337.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Gao, Hua
2018. 方梅 [Fang, Mei] (ed.) (2016) 互动语言学与汉语研究（第一辑） [Interactional Linguistics and Chinese Language Studies]. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 9:1 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
HALL, JOAN KELLY
2019. The Contributions of Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics to a Usage-Based Understanding of Language: Expanding the Transdisciplinary Framework. The Modern Language Journal 103 ► pp. 80 ff. DOI logo
Hall, Joan Kelly
2022. L2 classroom interaction and its links to L2 learners’ developing L2 linguistic repertoires: A research agenda. Language Teaching 55:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2016. Linguistics. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Routarinne, Sara & Liisa Tainio
2018. Sequence and turn design of invitations in Finnish telephone calls. Journal of Pragmatics 125 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 september 2023. 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.