Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:3 (2017) ► pp.543–576

Negative scope, temporality, fixedness, and right- and left-branching

Implications for typology and cognitive processing

| University of Alberta
| University of California, Santa Barbara

‘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.

Keywords: negative scope, conversation, temporality, prosody, grammar, fixedness, English, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Findings
    • 3.1Negative scope in English conversation
    • 3.2Negative scope in Japanese conversation
      • 3.2.1Clauses in Japanese conversation tend to be very short
      • 3.2.2‘Negative-anticipating’ forms
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
References

References

Auer, Peter
1996 On the prosody and syntax of turn-taking. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody and conversation, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1). 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Stefan Pfänder
2011 Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
2013 From ‘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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Intonation units revisited – Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky
2007 The wolf in sheep’s clothing: against a new judgement-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics 331. 319–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2001 Frequency effects on French liaison. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon & Bertram Malle (eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper
2001 Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Joanne Scheibman
1999 The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(3). 575–596.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Patricia
1980 Referential 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
1997 Deontic 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2005 Discovering order. Lingua 1151. 1641–1665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono
(eds.) 2007 Turn 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. DOI logo
Cyffer, Norbert, Erwin Ebermann, and Georg Ziegelmeyer
2009 Negation Patterns in West African Languages and Beyond. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1979 Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 171. 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bussser, Rik & Randy J. LaPolla
(eds.) 2015 Language structure and environment: social, cultural, and natural factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner
2015 Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe & Tyko Dirksmeyer
2014 Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language 38(1). 5–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2014 Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2005 Negative morphemes. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures. [[URL]].
Du Bois, John W.
1987 The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 63 (4), 805–855.Google Scholar
2003 Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 21, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cumming
1993 Outline 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.) 2014 Discourse participants in interaction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on subject expression and ellipsis. Special issue, Journal of Pragmatics 631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Beatrice Warren
2000 The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1). 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam
2007 Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 331. 269–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1989 Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (eds.), Language processing in social context, 17–38. Amsterdam: North-Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 The 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
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson
2013 Units 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson
1996 Interactional 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
2001 An 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi & Robert Jasperson
1996 A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann
2010 A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 421. 2487–2505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fry, John
2003 Ellipsis and wa-marking in Japanese Conversation. Oxford: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1981 Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. [available at [URL]].
Goldberg, Adele
2006 Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979 The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
2002 Time in action. Current Anthropology 431 (Supplement August – October 2002 – Special issue “Repertoires of Timekeeping in Anthropology). S-19–S35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, Wolfgang Imo & Joerg Buecker
(eds.) 2014 Grammar and dialogism. Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli and Margret Selting
eds. 2005 Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-Hye, Dennis Ryan Storoshenko & Yasuko Sakurai
2004 Scope of negation, and clause structure in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 301. 118–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko
2015 Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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
Hinds, John
1980 Japanese conversation, discourse structure, and ellipsis. Discourse Processes 31. 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982 Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1992 Times of the sign: on temporality in recent linguistics. Time and Society 1(2). 223–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
2001 Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 145–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011a Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfander (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
2011b Emergent grammar. In James Gee & Michael Handford, The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 301–314. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson
2008 Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: the multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1989 A natural history of negation. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shimako
2009 Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes 4561. 226–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The 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
1993 The 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.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi and Hongyin Tao
1993 A 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
2008 Conversation 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
1996 Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 251. 675–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2011 Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes 48(6). 404–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki
2008 On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44(2). 379–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972 Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In Robert Austerlitz (ed.), The scope of American linguistics, 77–133. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 When 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.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Marianne Celce-Murcia
2015 The grammar book. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Camilla Lindholm & Jan Lindström
2013 Syntactically 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.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Tsuyoshi Ono
2010 Recursion 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Ryoko Suzuki
(eds.) 2011 Subordination in conversation: a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J.
2004 The projectability of turn constructional units and the role of prediction in listening. Discourse Studies 6(4). 449–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Bjorn, Peter MacNeilage, and Michael Studdert-Kennedy
1984 Self-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.
1987 Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistic and Philosophy 101. 325–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
2005 The written language bias in linguistics: its nature, origins, and transformation. Oxford: Routledge. 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
2013 The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel E.
1975 A reference grammar of Japanese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Maruyama, Akiyo
2003 Japanese wa in conversational discourse: a contrast marker. Studies in Language 27(2). 245–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael
2011 On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Emergent projecting constructions: The case of He-brew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4). 785–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Word 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
2003 Intonation units in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Senko K.
1989 Japanese conversation: self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
McGloin, Naomi
1986 Negation in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Boreal Scholarly Publishers and Distributors, Limited.Google Scholar
Miller, J.
1995 Does 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & R. Weinert
1998 Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nagata, Hiroshi
1988 The relativity of linguistic intuition: the effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17(1). 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nihongo Bunkei Jiten
[A dictionary of Japanese sentence patterns] 1998 Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko
1988 A discourse-based analysis of complementation in Japanese. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, 223–235.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sadler, Misumi
2001 The Status of ‘Canonical’ Transitive Clauses in Japanese Conversations. 11th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
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
1994 Unattached NPs in English conversation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 201. 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 What 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
1997 Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’. BLS 231. 481–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku: they’re not just pronouns. Cognitive Linguistics 14(4). 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Fixedness 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson & Yumi Sasaki
2012 Japanese negotiation through emerging final particles in everyday talk. Discourse Processes 49(3–4). 243–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1976 The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, M.A.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Doctoral dissertation. (Available online at [URL]).
Rooth, Mats
1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11. 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1982 Discourse 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 321. 105–124.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
2007 The empirical basis of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Barden, Bergmann, Couper-Kuhlen, Gunthner, Meier, Quasthoff, Schlobinsky & Uhmann
1998 Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte 1731: 91–122. GAT – English edition: [URL].
Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
eds. 2001 Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M.
1990 The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J.
1995 On projection. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Social intelligence and interaction, 87–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanabe, Toshifumi, Masahito Takahashi & Kosho Shudo
2014 A lexicon of multiword expressions for linguistically precise, wide-coverage natural language processing. Computer Speech and Language 281. 1317–1339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko
1999 Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: a study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2000 Turn-projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on language and social interaction 33(1). 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Adverbials for turn projection in Japanese: toward a demystification of the “telepathic” mode of communication. Language in Society 301. 559–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Grammar and the timing of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society 34(3). 389–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
1998 A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Barbara A. Fox
2015 Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2002 Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Mitsugi, Sanako
2022. Polarity adverbs facilitate predictive processing in L2 Japanese. Second Language Research 38:4 ► pp. 869 ff. DOI logo
Mushin, Ilana & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Linguistic structures in social interaction. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko Suzuki
2020. Chapter 3. Exploration into a new understanding of ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese everyday talk. In Fixed Expressions [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 315], ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Sadler, Misumi
2020. Japanese negative suffix nai in conversation: Its formulaicity and intersubjectivity. Discourse Studies 22:4 ► pp. 460 ff. DOI logo
Shor, Leon
2020. Chapter 16. Negation in Modern Hebrew. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 583 ff. DOI logo
Vatanen, Anna, Tomoko Endo & Daisuke Yokomori
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 april 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.