Chapter published in:
Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 185220
Literature

Literature

Auer, P.
(1996) The pre-front field position in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6(3), 295–322. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Pre- and post-positioning of wenn-clauses in spoken and written German. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 173–204). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25, 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Syntax als Prozess. In H. Hausendorf (Ed.), Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion. (pp. 95–124). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2009a) On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31, 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes 46(2), 180–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & Pfänder, S.
(2011) Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp. 1–12). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & Lindström, J.
(2015) Left/right asymmetries and the grammar of pre- vs. postpositioning in German and Swedish talk-in-interaction. InLiSt 56.Google Scholar
Bergmann, J.
(1992) Konversationsanalyse. In Flick, U. et al. (Eds.), Handbuch qualitativer Sozialforschung (pp. 213–218). München: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
Boogaart, R. & Verheij, K.
(2013) Als dát geen insubordinatie is! De pragmatiek van zelfstandige conditionele zinnen. In T. Janssen, & J. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Honderd jaar taalwetenschap (pp. 12–28). Amsterdam/Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Breyer, T., Ehmer, O. & Pfänder, S.
(2011) Improvisation, temporality and emergent constructions. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp. 186–217). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.
(1978/87) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K.
(1918): Verschiedenheit der Satzgestaltung nach Maßgabe der seelischen Grundfunktionen in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Christmann, G. & Günthner, S.
(1996) Sprache und Affekt. Die Inszenierung von Entrüstung im Gespräch. Deutsche Sprache 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12, 1–51.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., Fox, B. & Thompson, S.
(2014) Forms of responsitivity: Grammatical formats for responding to two types of request in conversation. In S. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.). Grammar and Dialogism. Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation (pp. 109–138). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
(2000) Constructions with if, since, and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & Kortmann, B. (Eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (p. 111–142). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A.
(1999) Gespräche analysieren. Eine Einführung in konversationsanalytische Methoden. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W.
(2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3), 359–410. CrossrefGoogle 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
Fauconnier, G.
(1985): Mental Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C.
(1993) Grammar in Interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H.
(1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, S.
(1999) Wenn-Sätze im Vor-Vorfeld: Ihre Formen und Funktionen in der gesprochenen Sprache. Deutsche Sprache 3, 209–235.Google Scholar
(2006) Was ihn trieb, war vor allem Wanderslust: Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 59–90). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Brauchen wir eine Theorie der gesprochenen Sprache? Und: wie kann sie aussehen? GIDI-Arbeitspapierreihe (Grammatik in der Interaktion). http://​arbeitspapiere​.sprache​-interaktion​.de​/2007​/06/ Last access on 24.09.18.Google Scholar
(2008a) ‘Die Sache ist …‘: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27(1), 39–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es. Gesprächsforschung 9, 86–114.Google Scholar
(2009) Konstruktionen in der kommunikativen Praxis. Zur Notwendigkeit einer interaktionalen Anreicherung konstruktionsgrammatischer Ansätze. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 37(3), 402–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Between emergence and sedimentation. Projecting constructions in German interactions. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp. 156–185). Berlin/ Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) N be that-constructions in everyday German conversation. A renanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing is’)-clauses as projector phrases. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (2012) Die Schriftsprache als Leitvarietät die gesprochene Sprache als Abweichung? ‘Normwidrige’ wenn-Sätze im Gebrauch. In S. Günthner et al. (Eds.), Kommunikation und Öffentlichkeit (pp. 61–84). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) The dynamics of dass-constructions in everyday German interactions – a dialogical perspective. In S. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and Dialogism. Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation (pp. 179–206). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2014) This is a paper published in the following volumn: S. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and Dialogism. Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation (pp.179–206). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2015a) ‚Geteilte Syntax‘: Kollaborativ erzeugte dass-Konstruktionen. In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen (pp. 25–40). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2015b) Ko-Konstruktionen im Gespräch: Zwischen Kollaboration und Konfrontation. In U. Dausendschön-Gay, E. Gülich & U. Krafft (Eds.), Ko-Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. (pp. 55–74). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015c) A temporally oriented perspective on connectors in interaction: und zwar (,namely/in fact‘)-constructions in everyday German conversations. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction (pp. 237–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
(2017) Alleinstehende Nebensätze: Insubordinierte wenn-Konstruktionen in der kommunikativen Praxis. In Y. Ekinci, E. Montanari & L. Selmani (Eds.), Grammatik und Variation. (pp. 97–111). Heidelberg: Synchron Wissenschaftsverlag der Autoren.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. & Hopper, P.
(2010) Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung 11, 1–28.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. & Imo, W.
(Eds.) (2006) Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., Imo, W. & Bücker, J.
(Eds.) (2014) Grammar and Dialogism. Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S.
i. pr.). Wenn-Konstruktionen im Gespräch. Zur Verwobenheit kognitiver und interaktionaler Faktoren bei der Realisierung grammatischer Muster. In A. Binanzer, J. Gamper & V. Wecker Eds. Prototypen - Schemata - Konstruktionen. Untersuchungen zur deutschen Morphologie und Syntax Berlin de Gruyter
Haspelmath, M.
(2004) Coordinating constructions: an overview. In: Haspelmath, M. (Ed.), Coordinating constructions (pp. 3–39). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2015) Kollaborative Insubordination in gesprochenem Englisch: Konstruktion oder Umgang mit Konstruktionen? In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen (pp. 25–40). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.
(1987) Emergent Grammar. In Berkeley Linguistic Society (Ed.), General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition (pp. 139–157). Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
(1988) Emergent Grammar and the A Priori Grammar Postulate. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in Context (pp. 117–133). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (2004) The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 40, 153–175.Google Scholar
(2011) Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp. 22–44). Berlin/ Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. A.
(2008) Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In R. Laury (Ed.). Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 99–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Imo, W.
(2013) Sprache in Interaktion. Analysemethoden und Untersuchungsfelder. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Elliptical structures as dialogical resources for the management of understanding. In S. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and Dialogism. Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation (pp. 139–176). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1924) The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen, and Unwin.Google Scholar
König, E. & Van der Auwera, J.
(1988) Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In Haiman, J & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse (pp. 101–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laury, R.
(2012) Syntactically Non-Integrated Finnish jos ‘If’-Conditional Clauses as Directives. Discourse Processes 49, 213–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., Lindholm, C. & Lindström, J.
(2013) Syntactically non-integrated conditional clauses in spoken Finish and Swedish. In E. Havu & I. Hyvärinen (Eds.), Comparing and contrasting syntactic structures. (pp. 231–269). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1982/95) Thoughts on Grammaticalization. München/Newcastle: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H.
(1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20, 441–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Collaborative turn sequences. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation Analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leipzig Glossing Rules
(2015) The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. URL: https://​www​.eva​.mpg​.de​/lingua​/pdf​/Glossing​-Rules​.pdf. Last access on 24.09.18.
Levinson, S. C.
(2006) Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies 8, 85–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Action Formation and Ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Chichester: Blackwell.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
Luckmann, T.
(1990) Social communication, dialogue and conversation. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue (pp. 45–61). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y.
(2009) Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. 275–330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Metschkowa-Atanassova, Z.
(1983) Temporale und konditionale ‘wenn’-Sätze. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Google Scholar
Oppenrieder, W. (1989) Selbständige Verb-Letzt-Sätze: Ihr Platz im Satzmodussystem und ihre intonatorische Kennzeichnung. In H. Altmann, A. Batliner & W. Oppenrieder (Eds.), Zur Intonation von Modus und Fokus im Deutschen (pp. 163–244). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2011) Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation. A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 103–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 28–52). Cambridge MA.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, A.
(1932/1973) Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie. Wien: Julius Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. et al.
(2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung 10, 353–402.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M.
(1993) Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, L.
(1999) Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In P. Collins & D. Lee (Eds.), The Clause in English. In honour of Rodney Huddleston. (pp. 273–294). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. E.
(1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vallauri, E. L.
(2004) Grammaticalization of Syntactic Incompleteness: Free Conditionals in Italian and Other Languages. SKY/Journal of Linguistics 17, 189–215.Google Scholar
Wegner, L.
(2010) Unverbundene WENN-Sätze in der gesprochenen Sprache. GIDI-Arbeitspapierreihe. URL: http://​centrum​.sprache​-interaktion​.de​/cesi​-umfasst​/dfg​-projekt​-grammatik​-in​-der​-interaktion​-gidi​/arbeitspapiere​/arbeitspapier28​.pdf. Last access on 24.09.18.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G. et al.
(1997) Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Band 1–3. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

De Stefani, Elwys
2021. If-Clauses, Their Grammatical Consequents, and Their Embodied Consequence: Organizing Joint Attention in Guided Tours. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 september 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.