Article published in:
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 173200
References
Auer, Peter
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Syntax als Prozess.” In Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion, ed. by Heiko Hausendorf, 95–142. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2009 “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Avanzi, Mathieu
2011L’interface prosodie/syntaxe en Français. Dislocations, incises et asyndètes. Neuchâtel University: Unpublished PhD Thesis .
Berrendonner, Alain
2003 “Grammaire de l’écrit vs. grammaire de l’oral: le jeu des composantes micro- et macro-syntaxiques.” In Interactions orales et contexte didactique, ed. by Alain Rabatel, 249–264. Lyon: Presses Universitaires.Google Scholar
2008 “L’alternance que / #. Subordination sans marqueur ou structure périodique?” In Modèles syntaxiques, ed. by Dan Van Raemdonck, 279–298. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
1989 “Constructions verbales ‘en incise’ et rection faible des verbes.” RSFP 9: 53–73.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste Claire, et al.
1990Le Français parlé. Études grammaticales. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire
2000Approches de la langue parlée en Français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Cappeau, Paul and Deulofeu, José
2001 “Partition et topicalisation: il y en a ‘stabilisateur’ de sujets et de topiques indéfinis.” Cahiers de Praxématique 37: 45–82.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “On Assessing Situations and Events in Conversation: ‘Extraposition’ and its Relatives.” Discourse Studies 10 (4): 443–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald S.
2012 “An Analysis of the thing is that S Sentences”. Pragmatics 22.1: 41–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson
1996 “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational and Pragmatic Resources for the Projection of Turn Completon.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 135–184. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, Françoise
1992Le Français populaire. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2006 “ ‘Was ihn trieb, war vor allem Wanderlust’ (Hesse: Narziss und Goldmund): Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen.” In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Wolfgang Imo, 59–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008a “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es .” Gesprächsforschung 9, 86–114. URL: http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2008​/ga​-guenthner​.pdf.Google Scholar
2008b “Die ‘die Sache/das Ding ist’ – Konstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch – eine interaktionale Perspektive auf Konstruktionen im Gebrauch.” In Konstruktionsgrammatik II. Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Kerstin Fischer, 157–178. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Paul J. Hopper
2010 “Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.” Gesprächsforschung 11: 1–28. URL: http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2010​/ga​-guenthner​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2011 “Between Emergence and Sedimentation. Projecting Constructions in German Interactions.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder, 156–185. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
1996 “Transparent Vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Time in Action.” Current Anthropology 43, Supplement, Aug.–Oct. 2002, 19–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto
2004 “Projection and Grammar: Notes on the ‘Action-Projecting’ Use of the Distal Demonstrative are in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1337–1374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1987 “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157.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
2011 “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 153–175.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
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003 [1993]Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie and Simona Pekarek Doehler
2014 “ ‘Pivotage’ in French Talk-in-Interaction: On the Emergent Nature of [Clause-NP-Clause] Pivots.” Pragmatics 24 (3): 593–622. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1972 “Side Sequences.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 294–338. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jullien, Stéphane
2007 “Prosodic, Syntactic and Semantico-Pragmatic Parameters as Clues for Projection: the Case of «il y a».” Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28: 283–297.Google Scholar
2014Syntaxe et dialogue. Les configurations syntaxiques en ‘il y a’. Neuchâtel University: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Lambrecht, Knud
1986 “Pragmatically Motivated Syntax: Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French.” Chicago Linguistic Society 22 (2): 115–126.Google Scholar
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas
1997 “News Delivery Sequences: Good News and Bad News in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (2): 93–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2007 “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible next Speakers.” Discourse Studies 9 (2): 194–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2011a “Clause-Combining and the Sequencing of Actions: Projector Constructions in French Conversation.” In Subordination in Conversation: a Crosslinguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury and Royko Suzuki, 103–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b “Emergent Grammar for all Practical Purposes: The Online Formating of Dislocated Constructions in French Conversation.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder, 46–88. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
2013 “The Patching Together of Pivot-Patterns in Talk-in-Interaction: On ‘Double Dislocations’ in French.” Journal of Pragmatics 53: 92–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone ‘so’ in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 185–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992Lectures on Conversation. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1984 “On Some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 266–298. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks
1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8 (3): 289–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen
1995“‘On projection’.” In Social Intelligence and Interaction, ed. by Esther N. Goody, 87–110. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 “Object Complements and Conversation – Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26: 125–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2005 “The Clause as a Locus of Grammar and Interaction.” Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 481–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: CUP. Crossref
Valli, André
1981 “Note sur les Constructions Dites ‘Pseudo-Clivées’ en Français.” Recherches sur le Français Parlé 3: 195–211.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

No author info given
2015.  In Time and Emergence in Grammar [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 28], Crossref logo
Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Early Responses: An Introduction. Discourse Processes 58:4  pp. 293 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 october 2021. 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.