Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 1–18

Introducing new perspectives in interactional linguistic research

| Universität Potsdam
| Universität Potsdam
Since Interactional Linguistics (IL) is still a relatively recent approach to the study of language in talk-in-interaction, this introduction will first briefly outline how IL came about, what its current state is, and what it is characterized by. Then we will go into more detail on the new research perspectives that are highlighted by the contributions to this collection.
Keywords: Interactional Linguistics, Conversation Analysis, multimodality, new perspectives in IL research, talk-in-interaction, participant orientation, participant categories, sequential analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Interactional Linguistics and its emergence
  • 2.The current state of IL
  • 3.Defining characteristics of IL research
  • 4.New perspectives in interactional linguistic research
  • 5.The contributions to this edited volume
    • 5.1Studying linguistic resources in social interaction – “stretching the old linguistics to meet the challenge of talk-in-interaction” (Schegloff 1996: 114)
    • 5.2Studying linguistic resources in embodied social interaction – “search with fresher eyes and ears” (Schegloff 1996: 114)
    • 5.3Studying social interaction in institutional contexts and involving speakers with specific proficiencies –
      “search even farther […] in the details of the talk with which we must […] come to terms” (Schegloff 1996: 114)
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (41)
References
Auer, Peter. 2009. “On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting (eds.). 2010. Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2016. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. (2021). “Language over time. Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English.” Interactional Linguistics 1, 1:33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. 2011. “A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Selting, Margret et al.: Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51. ([URL]).
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Cecilia Ford (eds.). 2004. Sound Patterns in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner (eds.). 2014. Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 134–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 2002. The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Junko Mori. 1994. “Causal markers in Japanese and English conversations: a cross-linguistic study of interactional grammar.” Pragmatics 4: 31–62.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Yael Maschler, and Susanne Uhmann. 2010. “A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: evidence from English, German, and Hebrew.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2487–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Sandra A. Thompson, Cecilia E. Ford, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2013. “Conversation analysis and linguistics.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 726–40. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
French, Peter, and John Local. 1983. “Turn-competitive incomings.” Journal of Pragmatics 7: 17–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1990. He-said-she-said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, and Wolfgang Imo (eds.). 2006. Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Margret Selting (eds.). 2005. Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1995. “Conversation Analysis: Methodological Aspects.” In Aspects of Oral Communication, ed. by Uta Quasthoff, 391–418. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2004. “The openness of grammatical constructions.” Papers from the 40th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 153–75.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Katharina, and Martin Pfeiffer. 2019. “Report on the second meeting of the DFG scientific network “Interactional Linguistics – Discourse particles from a cross-linguistic perspective” from 11–13 September 2019 at the Leibniz Institute for the German Language (Mannheim).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 20: 213–224. ([URL])
Kupetz, Maxi, and Friederike Kern (eds.). 2021. Prosodie und Multimodalität – Prosody and Multimodality. Empirische Beiträge der Interaktionalen Linguistik. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. “Optimizing person reference: perspectives from usage on Rossel Island.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 29–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, John Kelly, and William H. G. Wells. 1986. “Towards a phonology of conversation: turn-taking in Tyneside English.” Journal of Linguistics 22: 411–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström, and Leelo Keevallik (eds.). 2020. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2016. “Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20,3: 336–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 1: 85–106. ([URL])
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Arnulf Deppermann (eds.). 2021. Longitudinal Studies in Conversation Analysis. Special issue of Research on Language and Social Interaction (ROLSI), 54 (2). [URL]
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Leelo Keevallik, and Xiaoting Li (eds.). 2022. The Grammar-Body Interface in Social Interaction. Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA DOI logo Google Scholar
Reber, Elisabeth. 2021. Quoting in Parliamentary Question Time: Exploring Recent Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf, Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann. 2009. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402 ([URL]; [URL]).
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis. An Introduction. Chichester / Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan Peter De Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. “Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 10587–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar