Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 1–9

Chapter 1
Discourse phenomena in typological perspective

An overview

| University of Bologna
| University of Bologna
Keywords: discourse, typology, pragmatics, grammar
Article outline
  • 1.What do we mean by ‘discourse phenomena’?
  • 2.Why should we study discourse phenomena … in typology?
  • 3.Discourse and typology: Where are we at?
  • 4.Contributions
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.01bar
References (44)
References
Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections. The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2–3): 101–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barotto, Alessandra & Mauri, Caterina. 2022. Non-exhaustive connectives. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 75(2): 317–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Beckner, Clay. 2010. Usage-based theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 827–855. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universal and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser & Helen Singmaster (eds), 265–279. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2009. Grammatical categories and relations: Universality vs. language-specificity and construction-specificity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 441–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan D. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. (ed). 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 4 Vols. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1997. Discourse as Structure and Process. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In Iconicity in Syntax [Typological Studies in Language 6], John Haiman (ed), 343–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Discourse and grammar. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed), 47–87. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. 1990. Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
García, Erica. 1979. Discourse without syntax. In Discourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón (ed), 23–50. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds). 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In Discourse and Syntax, T. Givón (ed), 81–113. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guérin, Valérie (ed). 2019. Bridging Constructions. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds), 139–157. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In Linguistics in Context, Deborah Tannen (ed), 117–134. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
1998. Emergent grammar. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 1, Michael Tomasello (ed), 155–175. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, Adam & Coupland, Nikolas. 1999. The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimée & Treis, Yvonne. 2019. Ideophones and interjections. Presented at workshop at SLE2019 Conference, University of Leipzig.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mattiola, Simone. 2020. Tipologia e ambiguità: Verso una tipologia orientata al discorso. Quaderni di Semantica S1: 197–222.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina & Sansò, Andrea. 2018. Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: Theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation. Folia Linguistica Historica 39(1): 1–35.Google Scholar
. 2019. Nouns & co. Converging evidence in the analysis of associative plurals. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 72(4): 603–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Heterogeneous plurals: A diachronic typology of associative and similative plurals. Linguistic Typology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John. 2001. Typology and discourse analysis. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 161–174. Oxford: Backwell.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah & Hamilton, Heidi E. 2001. Introduction. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 1–10. Oxford: Backwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cimmino, Doriana
2023. Chapter 12. On the topic-marking function of left dislocations and preposings. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 227], ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.