Article published in:
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 123146
References
Auer, Peter
2000 “Online Syntax – oder was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen.” Sprache und Literatur 85: 43–56.Google Scholar
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
2009 “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “ ‘L’idée vient en parlant’: Kleists Entwurf zur dialogischen Emergenz von Sprache und Denken.” Lecture Series Heinrich von Kleist: Zum 200. Todesjahr eines rebellischen Klassikers.Deutsches Seminar der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg in Verbindung mit der FRIAS School of Language and Literature, dem Studium Generale, der Freiburger Goethe-Gesellschaft und dem Theater Freiburg. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
this volume. “The temporality of language in interaction: projection and latency.” Crossref
Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder
2011 “Constructions: Emergent or Emerging?” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 1–21. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L.
1952 “Linear Modification.” Publications of the Modern Language Association 67: 1117–1144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brazil, David
1995A Grammar of Speech. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chadwick, Henry
1991Saint Augustine: Confessions. Translation, Introduction, Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson
2006“‘You know, it’s funny’: Eine Neubetrachtung der Extraposition im Englischen.“ In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Wolfgang Imo, 23–58. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.., et al.
2000–2005Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1- 4. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Franck, Dorothea
1985 “Sentences in Conversational Turns.” In Dialogue, An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. by Marcelo Dascal, 233–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Paul Hopper
2010“Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.“ Gesprächsforschung 11: 1–28, URL: http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2010​/ga​-guenthner​.pdf.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1998 “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Linguistic Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 155–75. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2001 “Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance?” In Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, ed. by Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier, and René Dirven, 109–129. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008“Die Bedeutsamkeit der mündlichen Interaktion für die Linguistik: Die Pseudocleft-Konstruktion im Englischen.“ In Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Kerstin Fischer, 179–188. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 239–256.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kleist, Heinrich von
1806 “Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden.” Unnumbered. http://​gutenberg​.spiegel​.de​/buch​/589​/1Google Scholar
McShane, Marjorie J.
2005A Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2001A Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 “Variable Island Repair under Ellipsis.” In Topics in Ellipsis, ed. by John Kyle, 132–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
1996 “Introduction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sandra A. Thompson
1994 “Unattached NPs in English conversation.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 20: 402–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1922Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 8. Ausgabe. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L.
1947Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: U Michigan.Google Scholar
Ross, John
1969 “Guess who?Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 252–286.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan and Joanna Nykiel
2008We Can’t Hear the Strikethroughs either: Sluicing without Deletion. Stanford, CA: Stanford U. URL: http://​www​.stanford​.edu​/dept​/linguistics​/semgroup​/ellipsevent​/SagNykiel​.pdf.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes
2012Gesprochenes Deutsch: Eine Einführung. 4., neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John and Anna Mauranen
2006Linear Unit Grammar. Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar