Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:3 (2017) ► pp. 543576
References

[ p. 569 ]References

Auer, Peter
1996On the prosody and syntax of turn-taking. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody and conversation, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1). 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Stefan Pfänder
2011Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
2013From ‘intonation units’ to cesuring – an alternative approach to the prosodic-phonetic structuring of talk-in-interaction. In Beatrice Szczepek-Reed and Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 91–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Intonation units revisited – Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky
2007The wolf in sheep’s clothing: against a new judgement-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 319–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2001Frequency effects on French liaison. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon & Bertram Malle (eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper
2001Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Joanne Scheibman
1999The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(3). 575–596.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1987Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Patricia
1980Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Chafe, Wallace, ed., The pear stories, 127–202. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M., Noriko Akatsuka & Susan Strauss
1997Deontic modality and conditionality in discourse: a cross-linguistic study of adult speech to young children. In Akio Kamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 19–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2005Discovering order. Lingua 115. 1641–1665. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
(eds.) 2007Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective. Special issue, Pragmatics 17(4).Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting
In press). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cyffer, Norbert, Erwin Ebermann, and Georg Ziegelmeyer
2009Negation Patterns in West African Languages and Beyond. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 570 ]
Dahl, Östen
1979Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17. 79–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Bussser, Rik & Randy J. LaPolla
(eds.) 2015Language structure and environment: social, cultural, and natural factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner
2015Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe & Tyko Dirksmeyer
2014Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language 38(1). 5–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2014Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2005Negative morphemes. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures. [http://​wals​.info/].
Du Bois, John W.
1987The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 63 (4), 805–855.Google Scholar
2003Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cumming
1993Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Rampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
(eds.) 2014Discourse participants in interaction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on subject expression and ellipsis. Special issue, Journal of Pragmatics 63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Beatrice Warren
2000The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1). 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam
2007Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 269–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1989Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (eds.), Language processing in social context, 17–38. Amsterdam: North-Holland. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996The pragmatics of constructions. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), Social interaction, social context, and language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
2013Units or Action Trajectories?: Is the language of grammatical categories the language of social action? In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 13–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Junko Mori
1994Causal markers in Japanese and English conversations: a cross-linguistic study of interactional grammar. Pragmatics 4(1). 31–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson
1996Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 135–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 571 ]
Fox, Barbara A.
2001An exploration of prosody and turn projection in English conversation. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 287–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi & Robert Jasperson
1996A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 185–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann
2010A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2487–2505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fry, John
2003Ellipsis and wa-marking in Japanese Conversation. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1981Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. [available at http://​www​.sscnet​.ucla​.edu​/clic​/cgoodwin​/publish​.htm].
Goldberg, Adele
2006Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
2002Time in action. Current Anthropology 43 (Supplement August – October 2002 – Special issue “Repertoires of Timekeeping in Anthropology). S-19–S35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, Wolfgang Imo & Joerg Buecker
(eds.) 2014Grammar and dialogism. Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli and Margret Selting
eds. 2005Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-Hye, Dennis Ryan Storoshenko & Yasuko Sakurai
2004Scope of negation, and clause structure in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 30. 118–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko
2015Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M.
2004Projection and grammar: notes on the ‘action-projecting’ use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 36(8). 1337–1374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John
1980Japanese conversation, discourse structure, and ellipsis. Discourse Processes 3. 263–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1982Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1992Times of the sign: on temporality in recent linguistics. Time and Society 1(2). 223–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
2001Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 145–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011aEmergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfander (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
2011bEmergent grammar. In James Gee & Michael Handford, The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 301–314. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
[ p. 572 ]
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson
2008Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: the multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1989A natural history of negation. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shimako
2009Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes 456. 226–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The multimodal mechanics of collaborative unit construction in Japanese conversation, in Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, eds Jurgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin and Curtis LeBaron, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp. 106-120.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi
1993The structure of the intonation unit in Japanese. In Soonja Choi (ed.), Japanese and Korean linguistics, vol. III, 39–53. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Tsuyoshi Ono
2002“Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. In Joan Bybee and Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 175–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi and Hongyin Tao
1993A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 1993.Google Scholar
Jones, Kimberly & Tsuyoshi Ono
2008Conversation and grammar: Approaching so-called conditionals in Japanese. In J. Mori & A. Ohta (eds.), Japanese applied linguistics: Discourse and social perspectives, 21–52. London: Continuum International.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
1996Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 25. 675–701. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2011Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes 48(6). 404–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki
2008On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44(2). 379–435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1975Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In Robert Austerlitz (ed.), The scope of American linguistics, 77–133. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996When intuitions fail. In K. McNair, L. Dolbrin & M. Aucon (eds.), Papers from the parasession on theory and data in linguistics, Chicago Linguistic Society 32: 77–105. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Marianne Celce-Murcia
2015The grammar book. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Camilla Lindholm & Jan Lindström
2013Syntactically non-integrated conditional clauses in spoken Finnish and Swedish. In Eva 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
Laury, Ritva & Tsuyoshi Ono
2010Recursion in conversation: What speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do. In H. van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and human language, 69–91. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 573 ]
Laury, Ritva & Ryoko Suzuki
(eds.) 2011Subordination in conversation: a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J.
2004The projectability of turn constructional units and the role of prediction in listening. Discourse Studies 6(4). 449–469. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Bjorn, Peter MacNeilage, and Michael Studdert-Kennedy
1984Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. In B. Butterworth, B. Comrie, and O. Dahl, (eds), Explanations for Language Universals, 181–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. A.
1987Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistic and Philosophy 10. 325–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
2005The written language bias in linguistics: its nature, origins, and transformation. Oxford: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
2013The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: Processes and resources. In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel E.
1975A reference grammar of Japanese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Maruyama, Akiyo
2003Japanese wa in conversational discourse: a contrast marker. Studies in Language 27(2). 245–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael
2011On the emergence of adverbial connectives from Hebrew relative clause constructions. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: emerging and emergent, 293–331. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Emergent projecting constructions: The case of He-brew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4). 785–847. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Word order in time: emergent Hebrew (NS)V/VNS syntax. In Arnulf Depperman & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in interaction, 201–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Kazuko
2003Intonation units in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Senko K.
1989Japanese conversation: self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
McGloin, Naomi
1986Negation in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Boreal Scholarly Publishers and Distributors, Limited.Google Scholar
Miller, J.
1995Does spoken language have sentences? In F. R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 116–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & R. Weinert
1998Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nagata, Hiroshi
1988The relativity of linguistic intuition: the effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17(1). 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nihongo Bunkei Jiten
[A dictionary of Japanese sentence patterns] 1998 Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko
1988A discourse-based analysis of complementation in Japanese. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, 223–235.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sadler, Misumi
2001The Status of ‘Canonical’ Transitive Clauses in Japanese Conversations. 11th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
[ p. 574 ]
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko Suzuki
Forthcoming). Exploration into a new understanding of ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese everyday talk. In Tsuyoshi Ono and Ritva Laury eds. Fixed expressions: Building language structure and action
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
1994Unattached NPs in English conversation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 402–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P. Davis (ed.), Descriptive and theoretical modes in the new linguistics, 213–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1997Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’. BLS 23. 481–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku: they’re not just pronouns. Cognitive Linguistics 14(4). 321–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Fixedness in Japanese adjectives in conversation: Toward a new understanding of a lexical (part-of-speech) category. In Roberta Corrigan, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language, 117–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson & Yumi Sasaki
2012Japanese negotiation through emerging final particles in everyday talk. Discourse Processes 49(3–4). 243–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1976The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, M.A.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Doctoral dissertation. (Available online at http://​dspace​.mit​.edu​/handle​/1721​.1​/16400).
Rooth, Mats
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson
1974A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1982Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: text and talk, 71–93. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne
2000 I dunno… a usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. JP 32. 105–124.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
2007The empirical basis of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Barden, Bergmann, Couper-Kuhlen, Gunthner, Meier, Quasthoff, Schlobinsky & Uhmann
1998Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte 173: 91–122. GAT – English edition: http://​agd​.ids​-mannheim​.de​/html​/gat​_en​.shtml.
Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
eds. 2001Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M.
1990The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J.
1995On projection. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Social intelligence and interaction, 87–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanabe, Toshifumi, Masahito Takahashi & Kosho Shudo
2014A lexicon of multiword expressions for linguistically precise, wide-coverage natural language processing. Computer Speech and Language 28. 1317–1339. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 575 ]
Tanaka, Hiroko
1999Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: a study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2000Turn-projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on language and social interaction 33(1). 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Adverbials for turn projection in Japanese: toward a demystification of the “telepathic” mode of communication. Language in Society 30. 559–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Grammar and the timing of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society 34(3). 389–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
1998A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. In Anna Siewierska & Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case, typology, and grammar, 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Barbara A. Fox
2015Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2002Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Mitsugi, Sanako
2021. Polarity adverbs facilitate predictive processing in L2 Japanese. Second Language Research  pp. 026765832110008 ff. Crossref logo
Mushin, Ilana & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Linguistic structures in social interaction. Interactional Linguistics Crossref logo
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko Suzuki
2020.  In Fixed Expressions [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 315],  pp. 41 ff. Crossref logo
Sadler, Misumi
2020. Japanese negative suffix nai in conversation: Its formulaicity and intersubjectivity. Discourse Studies 22:4  pp. 460 ff. Crossref logo
Shor, Leon
2020.  In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210],  pp. 583 ff. Crossref logo
Vatanen, Anna, Tomoko Endo & Daisuke Yokomori
2020. Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Projection in Overlapping Agreements to Assertions: Stance-Taking as a Resource for Projection.. Discourse Processes  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 2021. 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.