Cover not available
Part of
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 1–24

Introduction

Temporality in interaction

ORCID logo
The authors establish a phenomenological perspective on the temporal constitution of experience and action. Retrospection and projection (i.e. backward as well as forward orientation of everyday action), sequentiality and the sequential organization of activities as well as simultaneity (i.e. participants’ simultaneous coordination) are introduced as key concepts of a temporalized approach to interaction. These concepts are used to capture that every action is produced as an inter-linked step in the succession of adjacent actions, being sensitive to the precise moment where it is produced. The adoption of a holistic, multimodal and praxeological perspective additionally shows that action in interaction is organized according to several temporal orders simultaneously in operation. Each multimodal resource used in interaction has its own temporal properties.
Published online: 20 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.001int
References (109)
Atkinson, John M. and John Heritage (eds). 1984. Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1992. “Introduction: J. Gumperz’ Approach to Contextualization.” In The contextualization of Language, ed. by Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio, 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 57–100. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. “Online-Syntax.” Sprache und Literatur 85 (31): 43–56.Google Scholar
2005. “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. “Increments and more. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten.” In Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 279–304. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung; [URL].Google Scholar
. 2009. “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder (eds). 2011. Constructions: Emergent or Emerging?, 1–21. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. “The Problem of Speech Genres.” In Speech Genres and other Late Essays, (Transl. by V. McGee) ed. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist, 60–102. Austin, TX: Texas UP.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2013. “From ‘intonation units’ to cesuring – an alternative approach to the prosodic-phonetic structuring of talk-in-interaction.” In Units of talk – units of action, ed. by Beatrcie Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, 91–124. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, Jörg. 1985. “Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit: Aufzeichnungen als Daten der interpretativen Soziologie.” In Entzauberte Wissenschaft: Zur Relativität und Geltung soziologischer Forschung, ed. by Wolfgang Bonß and Heinz Hartmann, 299–320. Göttingen: Otto Schwartz.Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri 1970 [1889]. “Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience.” In Oeuvres, ed. by Henri Bergson, 1–157. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1982 [1934]. Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Wordless Questions, Wordless Answers.” In Questions: Formal, Functional, and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 81–102. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Susan A. Brennan. 1991. “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington, D. C.: APA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono (ed). 2007. “Turn Continuation in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Special Issue of Pragmatics 17 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2013. “Turn-Design at Turn-Beginnings: Multimodal Resources to Deal with Tasks of Turn-Construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Multi-Modal Participation in Simultaneous Joint Projects: Inter-Personal and Intra-Personal Coordination in Paramedic Emergency Drills.” In Beyond multitasking: Multiactivity in Social Interaction, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Maurice Nevile, Tiina Keisanen, and Lorenza Mondada, 247–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt. 2007. “Koordination. Zur Begründung eines neuen Forschungsgegenstandes.“ In Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, ed. by Reinhold Schmitt, 15–54. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, Reinhold Schmitt, and Lorenza Mondada. 2010. “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (6): 1700–1718. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2010. “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” University of California at Santa Barbara: Unpublished manuscript.
Ford, Cecilia. 2004. “Contingency and Units in Interaction.” Discourse Studies 6 (1): 27–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and 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, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Interaction and grammar, 135–184. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Sandra A. Thompson and Veronika Drake. 2012. “Bodily-Visual Practices and Turn Continuation.” Discourse Processes 42 (3–4): 192–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Transparent Vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Action and Embodiment Within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Time in Action.” Current Anthropology 43: 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “The Co-Operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1992. “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 147–190. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gülich, Elisabeth and Thomas Kotschi . 1996. “Textherstellungsverfahren in mündlicher Kommunikation.“ In Ebenen der Textstruktur, ed. by Wolfgang Motsch, 37–80. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2008. “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es.“ Gesprächsforschung 9: 86–114. URL: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2011a. “Between Emergence and Sedimentation: Projecting Constructions in German Interactions.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 156–185. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. “ N be that-constructions in Everyday German Conversation. A Reanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing is’)-Clauses as Projector Phrases.” In Subordination in Conversation. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Thomas Luckmann. 2001. “Asymmetries of Repertoires of Communicative Genres.” In Culture in Communication: Analyses of Intercultural Situations, ed. by Aldo Di Luzio, Susanne Günthner and Franca Orletti, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Paul Hopper. 2010. “Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.“ Gesprächsforschung 11: 1–28. URL: [URL].Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, Wolfgang Imo and Jörg Bücker (eds.). 2014. Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurwitsch, Aron. 2010[1957]. The Collected Works of Aron Gurwitsch (1901–1973): Volume III: The Field of Consciousness: Theme, Thematic Field, and Margin, ed. by Richard M. Zaner. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Haddington, Pentti, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile. 2013. Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, Pentti, Maurice Nevile, Tiina Keisanen, and Lorenza Mondada. 2014. “Towards Multiactivity as a Social and Interactional Phenomenon.” In Beyond Multitasking: Multiactivity in Social Interaction, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Maurice Nevile, Tiina Keisanen, and Lorenza Mondada, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2008. “The Place of Intention in the Interactional Achievement of Implicature.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Jacob Mey, 45–81. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Steven E. Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Rod Watson. 1979. “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” In Everyday Language, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth and Rebecca Clift. 2006. Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 13, 139–157. Berkeley: U Berkeley P. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. “Emergent grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Time and Grammar.” Münster: Paper given at International Conference on “Constructions in Interactions”.
Hopper, Paul. 2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul and J. Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1928. Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewußtseins. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1988. “Notes on a Possible Metric which Provides for a ‘Standard Maximum’ Silence of Approximately One Second in Conversation. In Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Derek Roger and Peter Bull, 166–196. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
. 2004. “A Sketch of some Orderly Aspects of Overlap in Natural Conversation.” In Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 43–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2013. “The Interdependence of Bodily Demonstrations and Clausal Syntax.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1972. “Some Relationships between Body Motion and Speech.” In Studies in Dyadic Communication, ed. by Aron Wolfe Seigman and Benjamin Pope, 177–216. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Conducting Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes. On the Context-Sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society 22: 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “The Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 151–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. “Action Formation and Ascription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidney and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
Linde, Charlotte 1993. Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2012. “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie and Mike Huiskes. 2001. “Dutch ‘but’ as a Sequential Conjunction. Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting and Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: UCP.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 1945. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible Next Speakers.” Discourse Studies 9 (2): 195–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Talking and Driving: Multi-Activity in the Car.” Semiotica 191: 223–256.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-Taking in Institutional Multi-Party Interactions: Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, Sigrid. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps. 2001. Living Narrative. Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Oloff, Florence. 2009. Contribution à l’étude systématique de l’organisation des tours de parole: les chevauchements en français et en allemand. Mannheim: Universität. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2013. “Embodied Withdrawal after Overlap Resolution.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 139–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona 2011. “Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 45–87. Berlin/ Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation Analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psathas, George and Francis Chaput Waksler. 1973. “Essential Features of Face-to-Face Interaction.” In Phenomenological Sociology: Issues and Applications, ed. by George Psathas, 59–83. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina and Mirka Rauniomaa. 2012. “Two Multimodal Formats for Responding to Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (6–7): 829–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “At the Intersection of Turn and Sequence Organization: On the Relevance of ‘Slots’ in Type-Conforming Responses to Polar Interrogatives.” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Sczcepek-Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, 169–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. “On some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage, 266–298. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1992a. “In another context.” In Rethinking context. Language as an interpretative phenomenon, ed. by Charles Goodwin and Alessandro Duranti, 191–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1992b. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection between Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Body torque. Social Research, 65, 535–586.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Overlapping talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29 (1): 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Reinhold. 2005. “Zur multimodalen Struktur von turn-taking. Gesprächsforschung.“ Onlinezeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 6, 17–61. URL: [URL].Google Scholar
Schmitt, Reinhold and Arnulf Deppermann. 2010. “Die Transition von Interaktionsräumen als Eröffnung einer neuen Situation.“ In Situationseröffnungen. Zur multimodalen Herstellung fokussierter Interaktion, ed. by Lorenza Mondada and Reinhold Schmitt, 335–386. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred. 1974[1932]. Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann. 1979. Strukturen der Lebenswelt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2005. “Syntax and Prosody as Methods for the Construction and Identification of Turn-Constructional Units in Conversation.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Beendigung(en) als interaktive Leistung.” In: Sprache als Prozeß, ed. by Heiko Hausendorf, 307–338. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1984. “On the pragmatic poetry of prose: parallelism, repetition, and cohesive structure in the course of dyadic conversation.” In Meaning, Forms and Use in Context, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 181–199. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. “Forward-Gesturing.” Discourse Processes 4 (2–3): 161–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron (eds.). 2011. Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2014. Deixis in der face-to-face interaktion. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logo
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
. 2003. Constructing a Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Weinrich, Harald. 1971[1964]. Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Monteiro, David, Oriana Rainho Brás & Michel Binet
2024. Time-oriented decisions in Palliative Care team meetings. Discourse Studies 26:3 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo
GREER, TIM & ZACHARY NANBU
2022. Visualizing Emergent Turn Construction: Seeing Writing While Speaking. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Küttner, Uwe-Alexander & Chase Wesley Raymond
2022. I was gonna say…. In Sprachreflexive Praktiken [LiLi: Studien zu Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 4], ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
PEKAREK DOEHLER, SIMONA & SØREN W. ESKILDSEN
2022. Emergent L2 Grammars in and for Social Interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Early Responses: An Introduction. Discourse Processes 58:4 ► pp. 293 ff. DOI logo
Günthner, Susanne
2021. WIR im interaktionalen Gebrauch: Zur Verwendung des Pronomens der 1. Person Plural in der institutionellen Kommunikation – am Beispiel onkologischer Aufklärungsgespräche. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 49:2 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Heath, Christian & Paul Luff
2021. Embodied Action, Projection, and Institutional Action: The Exchange of Tools and Implements During Surgical Procedures. Discourse Processes 58:3 ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Hopper, Paul J.
2021. “You turn your back and there’s somebody moving in”. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Marmorstein, Michal
2021. Discourse markers as a lens to variation across speech and writing. Functions of Language 28:2 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Pauletto, Franco & Biagio Ursi
2021. ”Eh ciò, Sergio el xe stà anca sfortunà”. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 28 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Tuncer, Sylvaine, Oskar Lindwall & Barry Brown
2021. Making Time: Pausing to Coordinate Video Instructions and Practical Tasks. Symbolic Interaction 44:3 ► pp. 603 ff. DOI logo
MAJLESI, ALI REZA
2018. Instructed Vision: Navigating Grammatical Rules by Using Landmarks for Linguistic Structures in Corrective Feedback Sequences. The Modern Language Journal 102:S1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 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.