Cover not available
Part of
Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan K. Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 1–22

Chapter 1
Complex syntax-in-interaction

Emergent and emerging clause-combining patterns for organizing social actions

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Complex syntax-in-interaction
  • 3.Purpose and structure of the volume
    • i.Emerging projecting constructions
    • ii.Locally emergent clause-combining patterns
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.01doe
References (102)
References
Auer, P. (1992). The neverending sentence: Rightward expansion in spoken language. In M. Kontra, & T. Váradi (Eds.), Studies in Spoken Language: English, German, Finno-Ugric (pp.41–59). Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
(2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25, 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer P. (2009). On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). (2011a). Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In P. Auer, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.2–21). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Maschler, Y. (2013). Discourse or Grammar? VS patterns in spoken Hebrew and spoken German narratives. Language Sciences 37, 147–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, M., & Mondada, L. (2013). Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 47(1), 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2007). Grammar in time: The non-restrictive ‘which’-clause as an interactional resource. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 55, 51–82.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes 49(3/4), 273–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). ‘Incrementing’ in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics 17(4), 513–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen. E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, Sandra A. (2008). On assessing situations and events in conversation: ‘Extraposition’ and its relatives. Discourse Studies 10(4), 443–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings: A comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In P. Auer, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.88–126). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Günthner, S. (Eds.). (2015). Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, C. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 27, 558–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finitness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp.366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Watanabe, H. (2016). Insubordination. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, M. (2001). Syntaxens sociala sida [The social aspect of syntax]. Språk och Stil 11, 5–24.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp.14–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to WH-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2), 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.370–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. Harness (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1), 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (2006). “Was ihn trieb, war vor allem Wanderlust” (Hesse: Narziss und Goldmund): Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp.59–90). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., & Hopper, P. (2010). Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudo-clefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 11, 1–28.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2017). Alleinstehende Nebensätze: Insubordinierte wenn-Konstruktionen in der kommunikativen Praxis. In Y. Ekinci, E. Montanari, & L. Selmani (Eds.): Grammatik und Variation: Festschrift für Ludger Hoffmann zum 65. Geburtstag (pp.97–111). Heidelberg: Synchron Wissenschaftsverlag der Autoren.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. (2001). Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes-no questions. Pragmatics 11(1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2005). Joint turn construction through language and the body: Notes on embodiment in coordinated participation in situated activities. Semiotica, 156, 21–53.Google Scholar
Helmer, H., Reineke, S., & Deppermann. A. (2016). A range of uses of negative epistemic constructions in German: ICH WEIß NICHT as a resource for dispreferred actions. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (2001). Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In M. Pütz, S. Neimeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition (pp.109–129). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The openness of grammatical constructions. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 40(2), 153–175.Google Scholar
(2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.22–45). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining (pp.99–123). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horlacher, A.-S. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2014). ‘Pivotage’ in French talk-in-interaction: On the emergent nature of [clause-NP-clause] pivots. Pragmatics 24(3), 593–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoy, D. C. (2009). The time of our lives: A critical history of temporality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, W. (2007). Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung. Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, S., (2011). The multimodal mechanics of collaborative unit construction in Japanese conversation. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp.106–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2006). From discourse pattern to epistemic marker: Estonian (ei) tea ‘don’t know’. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(2), 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Conjunction and sequenced actions: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp.125–152). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Interrogative “complements” and question design in Estonian. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.37–68). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Turn organization and bodily-vocal demonstrations. Journal of Pragmatics 65, 103–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In A. Deppermann, & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (p.309–336). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, A., Laury, R., & Seppänen, E.-L. (2011). Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish että-clauses. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.69–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., & Helasvuo, M.-L. (2015). Detached NPs with relative clauses in Finnish conversation. In M. M. J. Fernandez-Vest & R. D. Van Valin (Eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a crosslinguistic perspective (pp.149–166). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., & Okamoto, S. (2011). Teyuuka and I mean as pragmatic parentheticals in Japanese and EnglishIn R. Laury & R. Suzuki, Ryoko (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-linguistic Perspective (pp. 209238). Amsterdam, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., & Ono T. (2014). The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 24(3), 561–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., & Suzuki, R. (Eds.). (2011). Subordination in Conversation: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., Lindholm, C., & Laury, R. (2016a). The interactional emergence of conditional clauses as directives: Constructions, trajectories and sequences of actions. Language Sciences 58, 8–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., & Londen, A.-M. (2008). Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp.105–152). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., Maschler, Y., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2016b). Grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction: Cross-linguistic studies. Journal of Pragmatics 106, special issue.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Emergent projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4), 785–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Word order in time: Emergent Hebrew (Ns)V/VNs syntax. In A. Deppermann, & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp.201–236). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2017). The emergence of Hebrew loydea / loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) from interaction: Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. In A. Sansò, & C. Fedriani (Eds.), Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: New perspectives (pp.37–69). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y., & Dori-Hacohen, G. (2018). Constructing a genre: Hebrew lo yode'a / lo yoda'at ‘(I) don’t know’ on Israeli political radio phone-ins. Text & Talk 38(5), 575–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y., & Fishman, S. (forthcoming). From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- (‘what that’) construction in pseudo-cleft-like structures..
Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp.275–329). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies 8, 117–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9(2), 194–225. 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(10), 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Bodies in action: Multimodal analysis of walking and talking. Language and Dialogue 4(3), 357–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 65, 137–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(3), 336–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norén, N., & Linell, P. (Eds.). (2013). Pivot constructions in talk in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 54, special issue.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oloff, F., & Havlik, M. (2018). An initial description of syntactic extensions in spoken Czech. Pragmatics 28(3), 361–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011a). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French conversation. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp.103–148). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formating of dislocated constructions in French conversation. In P. Auer, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.46–88). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Grammar, projection and turn-organization: (il) y a NP ‘there is NP’ as a projector construction in French talk-in-interaction. In A. Deppermann, & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp.173–200). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2016). More than epistemic hedge: Je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ in French talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). At the interface of grammar and the body: chai pas (‘dunno’) as a resource for dealing with lack of recipient response. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 52(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher A.-S. (2015). Time and emergence in grammar: Left-dislocation, right-dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2013). The patching together of pivot-patterns in talk-in-interaction: On ‘double dislocations’ in French. Journal of Pragmatics 53, 92–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polak-Yitzhaki, H., & Maschler, Y. (2016). Disclaiming understanding? Hebrew 'ani lo mevin/a (‘I don’t understand masc/fem’) in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 163–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who? In R. I. Binnick, A. Davidson, G. M. Green, & J. L. Morgan (Eds), Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.252–286). Chicago, IL: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp.261–288). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoenica, I.-M. (2014). Répétition et différenciation dans les reprises structurelles intégrant des relatives. TRANEL 60, 209–220.Google Scholar
Stoenica, I. M. (2018). Le rôle des relatives dans l’organisation séquentielle de l’interaction: une approche temporelle, interactionnelle et praxéologique. (Doctoral thesis.) Neuchâtel: University of Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M. L., & Raevaara, L. (2014). On the grammatical form of requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & P. Drew (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp.243–268). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2002). Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the uses and evolution of so and like. Journal of Communication 52(3), 581–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., & Jordan, J. S. (2009). Projection and anticipation: the forward-looking nature of embodied communication. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 93–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2002). “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26, 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4–5), 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. Closs Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp.313–329). Vol. II. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1984). A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. Proceedings of the Tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 542–558.Google Scholar
Walker, G. (2007). On the design and use of pivots in everyday English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 2217–2243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wide, C. (2014). Constructions as resources in interaction: Syntactically unintegrated att ‘that’-clauses in spoken Swedish. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Expanding the scope of construction grammar (pp.353–388). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Ozerov, Pavel
2023. From sentential syntax to syntax of interaction. Journal of Speech Sciences 12 ► pp. e023001 ff. DOI logo
Hofstetter, Emily, Leelo Keevallik & Agnes Löfgren
2021. Suspending Syntax: Bodily Strain and Progressivity in Talk. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Rönnqvist, Sara & Jan Lindström
2021. Turn Continuations and Gesture: “And Then”-Prefacing in Multi-Party Conversations. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Stoenica, Ioana-Maria & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Fonctionnement macro-syntaxique et dimension anaphorique des relatives produites post hoc  : une analyse interactionnelle et multimodale. Langue française N° 210:2 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.