‘Negative scope’ concerns what it is that is negated in an utterance with a negative morpheme. With English and Japanese conversational data, we show that for an English speaker, calculating negative scope requires that recipients incrementally keep track of all the material in the clause that follows the negative morpheme, which comes early in the clause. In contrast, the negative morpheme comes late in the clause in Japanese; thus it would seem that recipients need to hold in memory all the material in the clause preceding the negative until the negative morpheme is produced. Several features of Japanese grammar, however, suggest that this characterization is not accurate. We argue that prosody, grammar, cognition, processing, and fixedness all interact with the grammar of clause organization to afford quite different real-time processing strategies for calculating the assignment of negative scope in languages with different ‘word order’ norms.
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.
1989A natural history of negation. Chicago University Press.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2009Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes 4561. 226–246.
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.
1993The structure of the intonation unit in Japanese. In Soonja Choi (ed.), Japanese and Korean linguistics, vol. III1, 39–53. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
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.
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.
1996Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 251. 675–701.
2011Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes 48(6). 404–431.
2008On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44(2). 379–435.
1972Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120.
1975Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In Robert Austerlitz (ed.), The scope of American linguistics, 77–133. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
1996When intuitions fail. In K. McNair, L. Dolbrin & M. Aucon (eds.), Papers from the parasession on theory and data in linguistics, Chicago Linguistic Society 321: 77–105. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Marianne Celce-Murcia
2015The grammar book. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
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. LXXXVI1, 231–270. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.
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.
2004The projectability of turn constructional units and the role of prediction in listening. Discourse Studies 6(4). 449–469.
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.
Linebarger, M. A.
1987Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistic and Philosophy 101. 325–387.
2005The written language bias in linguistics: its nature, origins, and transformation. Oxford: Routledge.
2009Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
2012Japanese negotiation through emerging final particles in everyday talk. Discourse Processes 49(3–4). 243–272.
Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
1976The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, M.A.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Doctoral dissertation. (Available online at [URL]).
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11. 75–116.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson
1974A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735.
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.
2000I dunno… a usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. JP 321. 105–124.
Schütze, Carson T.
2007The empirical basis of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2021. Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Projection in Overlapping Agreements to Assertions: Stance-Taking as a Resource for Projection. Discourse Processes 58:4 ► pp. 308 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 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.