Time and Emergence in Grammar

Dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction

| University of Neuchâtel
| KU Leuven
| University of Basel
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027226389 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027267986 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This monograph examines how language contributes to the social coordination of actions in talk-in-interaction. Focusing on a set of frequently used constructions in French (left-dislocation, right-dislocation, topicalization, and hanging topic), the study provides an empirically rich contribution to the understanding of grammar as thoroughly temporal, emergent, and contingent upon its use in social interaction. Based on data from a range of everyday interactions, the authors investigate speakers’ use of these constructions as resources for organizing social interaction, showing how speakers continuously adapt, revise, and extend grammatical trajectories in real time in response to local contingencies. The book is designed to be both informative for the specialized scholar and accessible to the graduate student familiar with conversation analysis and/or interactional linguistics.
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 28]  2015.  x, 275 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.28
Table of Contents
Preface
ix–x
Chapter 1. Introduction: The temporal and interactional nature of grammar
1–20
Chapter 2. State of the art
21–72
Chapter 3. Left-dislocation as an interactional resource
73–132
Chapter 4. Right-dislocation as an interactional resource
133–160
Chapter 5. Topicalization as an interactional resource
161–184
Chapter 6. The hanging topic construction as an interactional resource
185–220
Chapter 7. Hybrid forms, online revisions and emergent grammar
221–240
Chapter 8. Discussion and conclusion
241–252
References
253–268
Appendix 1
269–270
Appendix 2
271–272
Index
273–276
“An important and pioneering empirical study of a prominent family of constructions in spoken French (Left-Dislocation, Right-Dislocation, Topicalization, and Hanging Topic) from the point of view of their emergence in natural conversation. The authors contrast the discourse contexts in which each construction appears, revealing the subtle regularities and variations in the speakers’ deployment of each form. Adopting the perspective of Emergent Grammar, the authors conclude that syntax, far from being a static, autonomous system, is a flexible and adaptive repertoire whose forms and uses respond to the precise demands of social interaction.”
“This first comprehensive treatment of right-dislocation, left-dislocation, hanging topics and topicalization in French from a rigorously conversation analytic perspective has one central message: to argue that what seems to be related to information structuring alone serves in fact a multitude of interactional functions.”
“The decision to study LD, RD, TOP and HT from an interactionist perspective is highly commendable, and will be attractive both to researchers with a discourse-functional (i.e. information structure) background and to conversationalists. As such, this volume serves as a testing ground for interactional linguistics, which has so far not often been applied to Romance languages.”
“This is an important work, whose results contribute to our understanding of French word order and also have pedagogical ramifications (e.g., for an advanced conversation course). It should be read by any researcher interested in pragmatically marked word orders in French.”
“This book offers a valuable theoretical and methodological contribution to the feature analysis enjoyed by the four construction types. One contribution is that it offers a new direction of research on some well-studied construction types. It constitutes a follow-up and an empirical observation of interactive linguistics and emergent grammar, successfully shifting the analysis from what the grammatical constructions are about to what they do in interactive environments.”
Cited by

Cited by 18 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units [Benjamins Current Topics, 114], Crossref logo
de Weck, Geneviève, Anne Salazar Orvig, Stefano Rezzonico, Élise Vinel & Mélanie Bernasconi
2019. The impact of the interactional setting on the choice of referring expressions in narratives. First Language 39:3 ► pp. 298 ff. Crossref logo
Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Early Responses: An Introduction. Discourse Processes ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2019. Free NPs as units in Finnish. Studies in Language 43:2 ► pp. 301 ff. Crossref logo
Jacquin, Jérôme, F. Neveu, B. Harmegnies, L. Hriba, S. Prévost & A. Steuckardt
2020. Withdrawn article: Étudier les marqueurs épistémiques et évidentiels du français tels qu’ils émergent dans la parole-en-interaction. Synthèse critique de la littérature existante. SHS Web of Conferences 78 ► pp. 01007 ff. Crossref logo
JOURDAIN, Morgane & Karen LAHOUSSE
2020. The development of constructions from the right edge: a multinomial regression analysis of clitic left and right dislocation in child French. Journal of Child Language ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm, Inga-Lill Grahn & Martina Huhtamäki
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 245 ff. Crossref logo
Maschler, Yael
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 87 ff. Crossref logo
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2019. At the Interface of Grammar and the Body: Chais pas (“dunno”) as a Resource for Dealing with Lack of Recipient Response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 52:4 ► pp. 365 ff. Crossref logo
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Yael Maschler, Leelo Keevallik & Jan Lindström
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Priiki, Katri
2020. The Finnish tail construction as a first mention. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 43:2 ► pp. 181 ff. Crossref logo
Proske, Nadine & Arnulf Deppermann
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 275 ff. Crossref logo
Stoenica, Ioana-Maria & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 303 ff. Crossref logo
Stoenica, Ioana-Maria, Simona Pekarek Doehler & Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
2020.  In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 44 ff. Crossref logo
Suomalainen, Karita, Anna Vatanen & Ritva Laury
2020.  In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 12 ff. Crossref logo
Tao, Hongyin
2020.  In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 272 ff. Crossref logo
Thompson, Sandra A. & Tsuyoshi Ono
2020.  In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages [Typological Studies in Language, 128], ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Vatanen, Anna, Tomoko Endo & Daisuke Yokomori
2020. Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Projection in Overlapping Agreements to Assertions: Stance-Taking as a Resource for Projection.. Discourse Processes ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 march 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.

References
Allerton, David J.
1996 “Proper names and definite descriptions with the same reference: A pragmatic choice for language users.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 621-633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Hans
1981 Formen der Herausstellung im Deutschen. Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke and Rapley, Mark
2000 “ ‘Brilliant. Next question...’: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (3): 235-262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis
1997 “Les dislocations à gauche et à droite dans la construction des schématisations.” In Logique, discours et pensée, Alain Berrendonner and Denis Miéville (eds), 183-217. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis and Grobet, Anne
2005 “Appendices dans le discours: aspects syntaxiques, prosodiques et pragmatiques.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique 41: 95-126.Google Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis and Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2003 “Nouvelles perspectives sur la référence: des approches informationnelles aux approches interactionnelles.” Verbum 25 (2): 109-136.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1990 Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J.
1988 “The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and right-dislocations in French.” Lingua 75 (2-3): 203-229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “An acoustic profile of right-dislocations in French.” Journal of French Language Studies 4 (2): 127-145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
1991 “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze. Rechtsexpansionen im deutschen Einfachsatz.” Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 19: 139-157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization.” In The Contextualization of Language, Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio (eds), 1-38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996a “On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting (eds), 57-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b “The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position.” Pragmatics 6 (3), 295-323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “Zwischen Parataxe und Hypotaxe: ‘abhängige Hauptsätze’ im Gesprochenen und Geschriebenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 26 (3): 284-307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005a “Projection in interaction and projection in grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7-36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005b “Syntax als Prozess.” InLiSt: Interaction and Linguistic Structures 41. Retrieved from http://​www​.inlist​.uni​-bayreuth​.de​/issues​/41​/index​.htm.Google Scholar
2009 “On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language.” Language Sciences (31): 1-13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests. Notes on analepsis from the perspective of on-line syntax”. Pragmatics 24 (3): 533-560. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Müller, Frank
1999 Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter and Günthner, Susanne
2003 “Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung?” InLiSt: Interaction and Linguistic Structures 38. Retrieved from http://​www​.inlist​.uni​-bayreuth​.de​/issues​/38​/index​.htm.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan
2011 (eds). Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter and Lindström, Jan
2015 “Left/right asymmetries and the grammar of pre- and post-positioning in German and Swedish talk-in-interaction.” InList 56.Google Scholar
Avanzi, Mathieu
2011 “La dislocation à gauche en français parlé: étude instrumentale.” Le français moderne 74 (2): 157-175.Google Scholar
Bally, Charles
1944 Linguistique générale et linguistique française (2nd ed.). Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
1963 Traité de stylistique française (Vol. 1, 4th ed.). Genève: Georg.Google Scholar
Barnes, Betsy K.
1985 The Pragmatics of Left Detachment in Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 “Discourse particles in French conversation: (eh) ben, bon, and enfin”. The French Review 68 (5): 813-821.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth and Selting, Margret
(eds) 2010 Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay and Bybee, Joan
2009 “A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis.” Language Learning 59, Supplement 1: 29-48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain
2002 “Les deux syntaxes.” Verbum 24 (1-2): 23-36.Google Scholar
2008 “Il est beau, le lavabo: il fait problème, cet intonème.” In L’énonciation dans tous ses états, Merete Birkelund, Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Coco Norén (eds), 669-687. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain and Reichler-Béguelin, Marie-José
1997 “Left dislocation in French: Varieties, norm and usage”. In Taming the Vernacular: From Dialect to Written Standard Language, Jenny Cheshire and Dieter Stein (eds), 200-217. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Bilger, Mireille, Rouget, Christine and Van den Eynde, Karel
1990 Le français parlé: études grammaticales. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Blasco-Dulbecco, Mylène
1999 Les dislocations en français contemporain: étude syntaxique. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
2006 “Propositions pour le classement typologique de quelques détachements.” L’information grammaticale, 109, 27-33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blinkenberg, Andréas
1928 L’ordre des mots en français moderne (Vol. 2). Copenhague: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Blyth, Carl
1995 “ ‘C’est bon ça!’: Conventionalized displays of affect in French.” In Symposium About Language and Society Austin II, Pamela Silberman and Jonathan Loftin (eds), 130-142. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Button, Graham
1990 “On varieties of closings.” In Interaction Competence, George Psathas (ed.), 93-148. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Button, Graham and Casey, Neil
1984 “Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 167-190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1985 “Topic nomination and topic pursuit.” Human Studies 8: 3-55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2002 “Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure.” In The Evolution of Language out of Pre-language, Talmy Givón and Bertram F. Malle (eds), 109-134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.” Language 82 (4): 711-733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, Teresa and Eskildsen, Søren, W.
(eds) 2015 Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cadiot, Pierre
1992 “Matching syntax and pragmatics: A typology of topic and topic-related constructions in spoken French.” Linguistics 30 (1): 57-88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view.” In Subject and Topic. Charles N. Li (ed.), 25-55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1977 “The movement nature of left dislocation.” Linguistic Inquiry 8 (2): 397-412.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis
1986 “Anaphoric pronouns: Under linguistic control or signalling particular discourse representations?” Journal of Semantics 5: 233-260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
1993 English Speech Rhythm: Form and Function in Everyday Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Grammaticalization and conversation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds), 424-437. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Ono, Tsuyoshi
2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17 (4): 513-552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret
(eds) 1996 Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “Introducing interactional linguistics.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 1-19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Thompson, Sandra A.
2008 “On assessing situations and events in conversation: ‘Extraposition’ and its relatives.” Discourse Studies 10 (4): 443-467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A.
1979 “Right-dislocation in Franco-Canadian.” Chicago Linguistic Society 15: 70-78.Google Scholar
de Fornel, Michel
1988 “Constructions disloquées, mouvement thématique et organisation préférentielle dans la conversation.” Langue française 78: 101-123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2005 “Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting (eds), 289-317. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf and Günthner, Susanne
(eds) 2015 Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques
1978 Writing and Difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys
2005 “Les demandes de définition en français parlé. Aspects grammaticaux et interactionnels.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique 41: 147-163.Google Scholar
2007 “La dislocation à gauche rythmée comme dispositif de clôture séquentielle.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique 47: 137-156.Google Scholar
2008 “De la malléabilité des structures syntaxiques dans l'interaction orale: le cas des constructions clivées.” In Congres Mondial de Linguistique Française. Jacques Durand, Benoît Habert and Bernard Laks (eds), 703-720. Paris: Institut de lingusitique française.Google Scholar
2014 “Establishing joint orientation towards commercial objects in a self-service store.” In Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa (eds), 271-293. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys and Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2008 “Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements.” Pragmatics 18 (3): 381-406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deulofeu, José
1977 “La syntaxe et les constructions binaires.” Recherches sur le français parlé 1: 30-61.Google Scholar
1979 “Les énoncés à constituant lexical détaché: les limites de l’organisation grammaticale et de l’organisation discursive dans les énoncés.” Recherches sur le français parlé 2: 75-109.Google Scholar
1989 “Les couplages de constructions verbales en français parlé: effet de cohésion discursive ou syntaxe de l’énoncé.” Recherches sur le français parlé 9: 111-141.Google Scholar
Diemoz, Federica
2014 “L’exemple de la Suisse.” In La langue française dans le monde 2014. Alexandre Wolff (coord.), 153-156. Paris: Éditions Nathan.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C.
1978 Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul
1992 “Contested evidence in the courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), 470-520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul and Holt, Elizabeth
1995 “Idiomatic expressions and their role in the organization of topic transition in conversation.” In Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk and Rob Schreuder (eds), 117-132. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1998 “Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation.” Language in Society 27: 495-522. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2007 “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139-182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro and Ochs, Elinor
1979 “Left-dislocation in Italian conversation.” In Discourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón (ed.), 377-416. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duvallon, Outi and Routarinne, Sara
2005 “Parenthesis as a resource in the grammar of conversation.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting (eds), 45-74. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Rod
2003 Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, Frederick
1992 “They know all the lines: Rhythmic organization and contextualization in a conversational listing routine.” In The Contextualization of Language, Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio (eds), 365-397. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.
1993 Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “The treatment of contrasts in interaction.” In Cause, Condition, Concession, and Contrast: Cognitive and Discursive Perspectives, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann (eds), 283-312. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gryuter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Contingency and units in interaction.” Discourse Studies 6 (1): 27-52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A.
1996 “Practices in the construction of turns: the ‘TCU’ revisited.” Pragmatics 6 (3): 427-454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002a “Introduction.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 3-13. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002b “Constituency and the grammar of turn increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 14-38. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 “Units or action trajectories? Is the language of grammatical categories the language of social action?” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, Beatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond (eds), 13-56, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A.
1996 “Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns.” In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 135-184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
1987 Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “Contextualization, indexicality, and the distributed nature of grammar.” Language Sciences 16 (1): 1-37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A.
2007 “Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency and the notion of construction.” Studies in Language 31: 293-326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Wouk, Fay, Hayashi, Makoto, Fincke, Steven, Tao, Liang, Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Laakso, Minna and Flores Hernandez, Wilfrido
2009 “A cross-linguistic investigation of the site of initiation in same-turn self-repair.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, Jack Sidnell (ed.), 60-103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fradin, Bernard
1988 “Approche des constructions à détachement: la reprise interne.” Langue Française 78: 26-56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 “Approche des constructions à détachement: inventaire.” Revue Romane 25 (1): 3-34.Google Scholar
Furukawa, Naoyo
1992 “L’élément disloqué à droite: thème postposé ou non?” In Etudes de linguistique romane et slave, Wieslaw Banys, Leszek Bednarczuk and Krzysztof Bogacki (eds), 198-201. Cracovie: Ecole Normale Supérieure, Département d’études romanes.Google Scholar
Galambos, Sylvia J.
1980 “A clarification of the notion of topic. Evidence from popular spoken French.” Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, 125-137. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1987 “Tails (right-dislocations) as a repair mechanism in English conversations.” In Getting One’s Words into Line: On Word Order and Functional Grammar, Jan Nuyts and Georges De Schutter (eds), 119-129. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1992 From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left-Dislocation in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 The pragmatics of discourse anaphora in English: Evidence from conversational repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1976 “Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement.” In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 149-188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1983 “Topic continuity in Discourse: An introduction.” In Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, Talmy Givón (ed.), 1-41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions.” Linguistics 30 (1): 5-55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Syntax: An Introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979 “The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed.), 97-121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1995 “Sentence construction within interaction.” In Aspects of Oral Communication, Uta M. Quasthoff (ed.), 198-219. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Time in action.” Current Anthropology 43 (Supplement): 19-35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
1987 “Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessment.” IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1 (1): 1-54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds), 147-190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004 “Participation.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, Alessandro Duranti (ed.), 222-244. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
1980 “Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3-4): 303-317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gossen, Carl Theodor
1954 Studien zur syntaktischen und stilistischen Hervorhebung im modernen Italienisch. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L. and Michaelis, Laura A.
2001 “Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665-1706. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grobet, Anne
2002 L’identification des topiques dans les dialogues. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander
1975 “On the status of positionally-defined constraints in syntax.” Theoretical Linguistics 2 (1-3): 159-202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1974 The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, USA.Google Scholar
1975 “Left dislocation.” Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 92-131.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2008 “ ‘Die Sache ist...’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27 (1): 39-72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder (eds), 156-185. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Hopper, Paul J.
2010 “Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und im Deutschen.” Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 11: 1-18. Retrieved from http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2010​/ga​-guenthner​.pdf.Google Scholar
Guo, Jiansheng
1999 “The affective function of right dislocation in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (9): 1109-1128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret
2005 “Introduction.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting (eds), 1-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
1967 “Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2.” Journal of Linguistics 3: 199-244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm
1925 “Der sog. ‘Nominativus pendens’.” Indogermanische Forschungen 43: 207-257.Google 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
Heritage, John
2010 “Questioning in medicine.” In ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Functioning of Questions in Institutional Discourse, Alice Freed and Susan Ehrlich (eds), 42-68. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012 “The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 30-52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Turn-initial position and some of its occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 331-337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey
2005 “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15-38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
1994 “Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design.” Language in Society 23: 1-29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hietaranta, Pertti S.
1984 “A functional note on topicalization.” English Studies 1: 48-51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth and Drew, Paul
2005 “Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (1): 35-61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1987 “Emergent Grammar.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 139-157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
1992 “Emergence of grammar.” In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Vol. 1), William Bright (ed.), 364-367. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1998 “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 155-175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2001 “Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance?” In Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier and René Dirven (eds), 109-129. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “The openness of grammatical constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society 40 (2): 153-175.Google Scholar
2011 “Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder (eds), 22-44. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra, A.
2008 “Projectability and clause combining in interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, Ritva Laury (ed.), 99-123. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2007 “La dislocation à droite comme ressource pour l’alternance des tours de parole: vers une syntaxe incrémentale.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique 47: 117-136.Google Scholar
2008 “Entre évaluation formulaïque et résumé généralisant: le rôle de la dislocation à droite dans la clôture d’épisodes conversationnels.” Proceedings from the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2008 . Retrieved from Crossref.
2015 La dislocation à droite revisitée: une approche interactionniste. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie and Müller, Gabriele
2005 “L’implication de la dislocation à droite dans l’organisation interactionnelle.” Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique 41: 127-145.Google Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie and Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2014 “ ‘Pivotage’ in French talk-in-interaction: On the emergent nature of [clause-NP-clause] pivots.” Pragmatics 24 (3): 593-622. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M.
1975 “On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo.” In Word Order and Word Order Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 113-147. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2007 Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung: Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1972 “Side sequences.” In Studies in Social Interaction, David Sudnow (ed.), 294-338. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
1978 “Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, Jim Schenkein (ed.), 219-248. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1981 “The abominable ‘ne?’ An exploration of post-response pursuit of response.” In Dialogforschung, Peter Schröder and Hugo Steger (eds), 53-88. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
1984 “On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 191-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991 “List construction as a task and resource.” In Interactional Competence, George Psathas (ed.), 63-92. New York: Irvington Pubishers.Google Scholar
2004 “A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, Gene H. Lerner (ed.), 131-167. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jullien, Stéphane
2014 Syntaxe et dialogue: les configurations syntaxiques impliquant ‘il y a’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2011 “The terms of not knowing.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, Tanya Stivers, Mondada Lorenza and Jakob Steensig (eds), 184-206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knecht, Pierre
1985 “La Suisse romande”. In La Suisse aux quatre langues. Robert Schläpfer, et al. (eds), 125-69. Geneva: Éditions Zoé.Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene
2002 “Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge display in error correction sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (3): 277-309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1981 Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 “On the status of SVO sentences in French discourse.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, Russel S. Tomlin (ed.), 217-261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996a “On the formal and functional relationship between topics and vocatives: Evidence from French.” In Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Adele Goldberg (ed.), 267-288. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
1996b “Compositional vs. constructional meaning: The case of French comme-N.” In Proceedings of the 5th SALT Conference, Teresa Galloway and Mandy Simons (eds), 186-203. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
1998 “Sur la relation formelle et fonctionnelle entre topiques et vocatifs.” Langues 1 (1): 34-45.Google Scholar
2001 “Dislocation”. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook (Vol. 2), Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1050-1078. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004 “On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions: The case of French right-detached comme-N.” In Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), 157-199. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1974 “Movement rules in functional perspective.” Language 50 (4): 630-664. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane
2006 “The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English.” Applied Linguistics 27 (4): 590-619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Eva
1979 La dislocation en français: étude de syntaxe générative, Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva and Okamoto, Shigeko
2011 “Teyuuka and I mean as pragmatic parentheticals in Japanese and English.” In Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki (eds), 209-238. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva and Suzuki, Ryoko
2011 (eds). Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Sabine
2010 “L’évolution des termes d’adresse à contenu social en ancien et en moyen français.” Special issue of CORELA: L’interpellation. Retrieved from http://​corela​.edel​.univ​-poitiers​.fr​/index​.php​?id​=1610 doi: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Le Querler, Nicole
1999 “Dislocation et thématisation en français”. In La thématisation dans les langues, Claude Guimier (ed.), 263-275. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2003 “Le nominativus pendens en français.” Cahiers de praxématique 40: 149-166.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1991 “On the syntax of sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society 20: 441-458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker.” In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 238-276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: A turn-constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell (eds), 95-134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude
1962 La pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan
2006 “Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (1): 81-117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
1998 Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Towards a dialogical linguistics”. In Proceedings of the XII International Bakhtin Conference , Mika Lähteenmäki, Hannele Dufva, Sirpa Leppänen and Piia Varis (eds), 157-172. University of Jyväskylä.
Linell, Per and Korolija, Natascha
1997 “Coherence in multy-party conversation: Episodes and contexts in interaction.” In Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives, Talmy Givón (ed.), 167-205. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A.
1976 “Subject and topic: A new typology of language.” In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 458-489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Luke, Kang-Kwong, Thompson, Sandra A. and Ono, Tsuyoshi
2012 “Turns and increments: A comparative perspective”. Discourse Processes 49 (3-4): 155-162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
1987 “The competition model.” In Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, Brian MacWhinney (ed.), 249-308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1998 “Models of the emergence of language.” Annual Review of Psychology 49: 199-227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael
2012 “Emergent projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’).” Studies in Language 36 (4): 785-847. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian and Thompson, Sandra A.
1988 “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’.” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 275-329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
1980 “Placement of topic changes in conversation.” Semiotica 30 (3-4): 263-290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie
2007 “Parenthetical sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1816-1869. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meshtrie, Rajend
1997 “A sociolinguistic study of topicalisation phenomena in South African Black English.” In Englishes Around the World (Vol. 2: Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Australasia), Edgar W. Schneider (ed.), 119-140. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. and Lambrecht, Knud
1996 “Toward a construction-based theory of language: The case of nominal extraposition.” Language 76 (2): 219-245.Google Scholar
Milano, Emma
2003 Dal centro alla periferia dei processi di topicalizzazione: uno studio variazionale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Heidelberg, Germany. Retrieved from http://​archiv​.ub​.uni​-heidelberg​.de​/volltextserver​/5873​/1​/tesiEmmaMilano​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
1995 “La construction interactionnelle du topic.” Cahiers de l’ILSL 7: 111-135.Google Scholar
In press. “Turn-initial voilà: reaffirming epistemic authority over the sequence.” In Turn-initial particles across languages, John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds) Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins
Müller, Gabriele M.
2006 La pseudo-clivée: étude en linguistique interactionnelle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Netz, Hadar and Kudar, Ron
2007 “Three marked theme constructions in spoken English.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 305-335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nølke, Henning
1983 Les adverbes paradigmatisants: fonction et analyse. København: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
1997 “Note sur la dislocation du sujet: thématisation ou focalisation?” In Les formes du sens, Georges Kleiber and Martin Riegel (eds), 281-294. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
1998 “Il est beau le lavabo, il est laid le bidet: pourquoi disloquer le sujet?” In Prédication, assertion, information, Mats Forsgren, Kerstin Jonasson and Hans Kronning (eds), 385-394. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Norén, Niklas
2007 Apokoinou in Swedish Talk-in-Interaction: A Family of Methods for Grammatical Construction and the Resolving of Local Communicative Projects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Linköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra A.
1996 (eds). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Thompson, Sandra A.
1995 “What can conversation tell us about syntax?” In Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes, Philip W. Davis (ed.), 213-271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2000 “Anaphora in conversation: Grammatical coding and preference organization.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7 (1): 183-196.Google Scholar
2001 “Dislocation à gauche et organisation interactionnelle.” Marges Linguistiques 2: 177-194.Google Scholar
2004 “Une approche interactionniste de la grammaire: réflexions autour du codage grammatical de la référence et des topics chez l’apprenant avancé d’une L2.” Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère 21: 123-166.Google Scholar
2011a “Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction.” In Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki (eds), 103-148. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b “Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder (eds), 45-87. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Disclaiming knowledge? Three sequential positions of ‘je sais pas’ in French talk-in-interaction”. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Los Angeles.
2015 “Grammar, projection and turn-organization: (il) y a NP ‘there is NP’ as a projector construction in French talk-in-interaction”. In Temporality in Interaction, Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner (eds), 173-199. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, De Stefani, Elwys and Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2011 “The grammar of closings: The use of dislocated constructions as closing initiators in French talk-in-interaction.” Nottingham French Studies 50 (2): 51-76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2013 “The patching-together of pivot patterns in talk-in-interaction: On ‘double dislocations’ in French.” Journal of Pragmatics 54: 92-108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Müller, Gabriele M.
2006 “Zur Rolle von Linksherausstellungen bei der interaktiven Konstruktion von Auflistungen: Linksversetzungen und Pseudo-Clefts im gesprochenen Französischen.” In Grammatik und Interaktion, Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds), 245-278. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
2007 “Le problème c’est de les distinguer: disloquée à gauche et pseudo-clivée dans la conversation.” In Les linguistiques du détachement, Denis Apothéloz, Bernard Combettes and Franck Neveu (eds), 413-426. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Pochon-Berger, Evelyne
2010 “Le format-tying comme technique de gestion du désaccord: l’exemple des interaction en classe.” In Les reformulations pluri-sémiotiques en contexte de formation, Alain Rabatel (ed.), 117-133. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Stoenica, Ioana M.
2012 “Emergence, temporalité et grammaire-dans-l’interaction: disloquée à gauche et nominativus pendens en français contemporain.” Langue française 175 (3): 111-127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1975 Second Assessments: A Study of some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
1984 “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M.
1971 Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Prévost, Sophie
2003 “Détachement et topicalisation: des niveaux d’analyse différents.” Cahiers de Praxématique 40: 97-126.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1993 “Word order and information structure: A performance-based account of topic positions and focus positions.” In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld and Theo Vennemann (eds), 880-896. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F.
1981 “Topicalization, focus movement, and Yiddish movement: A pragmatic differentiation.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 249-264. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
1984 “Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional analysis.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 433: 213-225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 “On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse.” In Directions in Functional Linguistics, Akio Kamio (ed.), 117-143. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization.” In The Limits of Syntax, Peter W. Culicover and Louise McNally (eds), 281-302. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2010 “Prosodic variation in response: The case of type-conforming responses to yes/no interrogatives.” In Prosody in Interaction, Elisabeth Reber, Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten (eds), 109-129. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey and Heritage, John
2013 “One question after another: Same-turn repair in the formation of yes/no type initiating actions.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell (eds), 135-171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1981 “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics.” Philosophica 27 (1): 53-94.Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin, Pellat, Jean-Christophe and Rioul, René
(2009) Grammaire méthodique du français (2nd edition). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. Retrieved from http://​babel​.ucsc​.edu​/~hank​/ross67​.pdf.Google Scholar
Sabio, Frédéric
2006 “L’antéposition des compléments en français contemporain: l’exemple des objets directs”. Linguisticae Investigationes 29: 173-182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1984 “Notes on methodology.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 21-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987 “On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.” In Talk and Social Organization, Graham Button and John R.E. Lee (eds), 54-69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1992 Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey and Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1979 “Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed.), 15-21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail
1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696-735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Ayala, Ivo
2003 “Constructions as resources for interaction: Lists in English and Spanish conversation.” Discourse Studies 5 (3): 323-349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropologist 70: 1075-1095. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979 “The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation.” Syntax and Semantics 12: 261-286.Google Scholar
1984 On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), 28-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1986 “The routine as achievement.” Human Studies 9: 111-151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 “Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization.” In Talk and Social Organization, Graham Button and John R.E. Lee (eds), 70-85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1998 “Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction.” Language and Speech 41 (3-4): 235-263.Google Scholar
1990 “On the organization of sequences as a source of ‘coherence’ in talk-in-interaction.” In Conversational Organization and its Development, Bruce Dorval (ed.), 51-77. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
1996a “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 52-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b “Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, Barbara A. Fox (ed.), 437-485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “On turns’ possible completion, more or less: Increments and trail-offs.” Paper presented at the 2000 Annual Conference of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
2001 “Conversation analysis: A project in process – ‘increments’.” Paper presented at the Linguistic Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.
2007 Sequence Organization. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Lerner, Gene H.
2009 “Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (2): 91-115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Ochs, Elinor and Thompson, Sandra A.
1996 “Introduction.” In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 1-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Sacks, Harvey
1973 “Opening up closings.” Semiotica 8: 289-327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne
2000 “ ‘I dunno’: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of ‘don’t’ in American English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105-124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, John, Favareau, Donald, Goodwin, Charles, Lee, Namhee, Mikesell, Lisa, Tao, Hongyin, Véronique, Daniel and Wray, Alison
2006 “Language evolution: What evolved?” Marges Linguistiques 11, 167-199.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret
1996 “On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation.” Pragmatics 6 (3): 371-388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “The construction of units in conversational talk.” Language in Society 29: 477-517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 229-258. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Anne-Catherine
2004 “Analyse de la variation prosodique du français dans les données conversationnelles: propositions théoriques et méthodologiques.” Bulletin de la Phonologie du Français Contemporain 3: 99-113.Google Scholar
Simone, Raffaele
1997 “Une interprétation diachronique de la dislocation à droite dans les langues romanes.” Langue française 115: 48-61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simonin, Olivier and Leonarduzzi, Laetitia
2009 “Dislocations à droite et extrapositions nominales: syntaxe et réalisation(s).” In Grammaire et prosodie (Vol. 2), Daniel Roulland (ed.), 129-149. Rennes: PUR.Google Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth
1997 Voranstellungsstrukturen und ‘topic’-Markierung im Französischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Stempel, Wolf-Dieter
1981 “L’amour elle appelle ça – L’amour tu connais pas.” In Logos Semantikos (Vol. 4), Christian Rohrer (ed.), 351-367. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Robinson, Jeffrey D.
2006 “A preference for progressivity in interaction.” Language in Society 35 (3): 367-392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Rossano, Federico
2010 “Mobilizing response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1): 3-31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice
2011 Analyzing Conversation: An Introduction to Prosody. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice and Raymond, Geoffrey
(eds) 2013 Units of Talk – Units of Action. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko
1999 Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 “ ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account.” Studies in Language 26 (1): 125-164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2005 “The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction.” Discourse Studies 7 (4-5): 481-505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Fox, Barbara A. and Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(eds) 2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony J.
1991 “A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization (Vol. 2), Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heinde (eds), 313-329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003 Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsui, Amy B.M.
1991 “The pragmatic functions of I don’t know ”. Text 11 (4): 607-622.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric
1991 “Focus constructions in Catalan.” In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Christiane Laeufer and Terrell A. Morgan (eds), 457-479. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “Detachment in Catalan and information packaging.” Journal of Pragmatics 22 (6): 573-601. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vorreiter, Susanne
2003 “Turn-continuations: Towards a cross-linguistic classification”. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 39: 1-26.Google Scholar
Walker, Gareth
2001 A phonetic approach to talk-in-interaction. Increments in conversation. MA thesis, University of York, UK.Google Scholar
2004 “On some interactional and phonetic properties of increments to turns in talk-in-interaction”. In Sound Patterns in Interaction, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford (eds), 147-169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “On the design and use of pivots in everyday English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (12): 2217-2243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory L.
1985 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael
1994 “Left and right dislocations: Discourse functions and anaphora.” Journal of Pragmatics 22 (6): 629-645. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M.
1974 “Hey, whatsyourname!” In Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Michael La Galy, Robert A. Fox and Anthony Bruck (eds), 787-801. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Subjects

Linguistics

Pragmatics
Theoretical linguistics
Romance linguistics
Syntax
Discourse studies
Functional linguistics
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2015023212 | Marc record