Cover not available
Part of
Grammar in Action: Building comprehensive grammars of talk-in-interaction
Edited by Jakob Steensig, Maria Jørgensen, Jan K. Lindström, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen and Søren Sandager Sørensen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 37] 2025
► pp. 1–24

Chapter 1
Grammar in action

Social interaction as a basis for a comprehensive grammar?

 | Aarhus University
 | Aarhus University
 | University of Helsinki
 | Aarhus University
 | Åbo Akademi University
 | University of Agder
In this chapter, we introduce the background for the studies in this volume. We review the treatment of grammar in Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics and introduce the basic concepts in this analytical approach. We then discuss how interactional perspectives may relate to grammar writing, with examples from previous research and implications for future studies. We conclude this introduction with an overview of the chapters.
Keywords: grammar, action, talk-in-interaction, social action format, Interactional Linguistics, Conversation Analysis, language description, methodology, embodied conduct, emergence
Article outline
  • 1.What is a grammar?
    • 1.1Different types of comprehensive grammars
    • 1.2Towards an interactional grammar
    • 1.3Inspiration from earlier grammars and other linguistic research
  • 2.The methodological foundations of the volume
  • 3.Contributions from Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics to grammar writing
    • 3.1Interactional Linguistic contributions to grammar writing
    • 3.2Central concepts in Interactional Linguistics concerning grammar
  • 4.This volume
    • 4.1How the volume came into being
    • 4.2The chapters of the volume
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (81)
References
Ameka, Felix. K. 1991. Ewe: Its grammatical constructions and illocutionary devices (PhD dissertation). Australian National University.
Ameka, Felix K., Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans (eds). 2006a. Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds). 2006b. “Preface.” In Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, ed. by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, v. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anward, Jan, and Bengt Nordberg. 2005. “Indledning [Introduction].” In Samtal och Grammatik: Studier i Svenskt Samtalsspråk [Conversation and Grammar: Studies in Swedish Conversational Language], ed. by Jan Anward, and Bengt Nordberg, 5–9. Lund: StudentlitteraturGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. “Projection in interaction and projection in grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36Google Scholar
. 2009. “Online-syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31 (1): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. “Online syntax.” In Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey, and Chase Wesley Raymond International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA)Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Stefan Pfänder (eds). 2011. Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2016. Intonation Units Revisited. Cesuras in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma, Lorenza Mondada, Arnulf Deppermann, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds). 2021. OKAY across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Randolph Quirk (eds). 2012. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. 10th impression. Harlow: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath, and Balthasar Bickel. 2015. The Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. [URL]Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. “What Does Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting (eds). 1996. Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Introducing Interactional Linguistics.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marget Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DanTIN. 2024. “Samtalegrammatik.dk.” 2024. [URL]
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner (eds). 2015. Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Michael Haugh (eds). 2022. Action Ascription in Interaction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2024. “Interjections at the Heart of Language.” Annual Review of Linguistics 10 (1): 257–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, and N. J. Enfield. 2015. “Other-Initiated Repair across Languages: Towards a Typology of Conversational Structures.” Open Linguistics 1 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Fransisco Torreira, and N. J. Enfield. 2013. “Is ‘Huh?’ A Universal Word?: Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items.” PLOS ONE 8 (11): 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2007. Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2010. “Question–Response Sequences in Conversation across Ten Languages: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2615–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Alan Dench. 2006. “Introduction: Catching Language.” In Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, edited by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, 1–39. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield (eds). 2020. Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Practices in the Construction of Turns: The ‘TCU’ Revisited.” Pragmatics 6 (3): 427–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara. A. 2000. Micro-syntax in English Conversation. Paper presented at the conference Interactional Linguistics, Spa, Belgium.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2007. “Principles Shaping Grammatical Practices: An Exploration.” Discourse Studies 9 (3): 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
French, Peter, and John Local. 1983. “Turn Competitive Incomings.” Journal of Pragmatics 7 (1): 17–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam, and Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch.” In Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman, 11–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2002. “Time in Action.” Current Anthropology 43 (S4): 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, and Wolfgang Imo. 2006. “Konstruktionen in der Interaktion [Constructions in the interaction].” In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner, and Wolfgang Imo, 1–22. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho (eds). 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive Finnish Grammar]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google 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
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Syntax in the Making: The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden. 2012. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds). 2018. Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip, 139–57. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2015. “Interactional Construction Grammar.” Linguistics Vanguard 1 (1): 69–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Maria. 2024. “A Question of Embeddedness: On Clausal and Phrasal Responses to Specifying WH-Questions in Danish Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 57 (3): 323–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Tsuyoshi Ono (eds). 2020. Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Ryoko Suzuki (eds). 2011. Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. “Action Formation and Ascription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan. 2008. Tur och ordning: Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik [Turn and Order: Introduction to Swedish Grammar for Conversation]. Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.Google Scholar
. 2025. “Constructions in Spoken interaction.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Mirjam Fried, and Kiki Nikiforidou, 309–334. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins, and Transformations. Routledge.Google Scholar
Local, John, John Kelly, and Bill Wells. 1986. “Towards a Phonology of Conversation: Turn-Taking in Tyneside English.” Journal of Linguistics 22 (2): 411–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström, and Leelo Keevallik (eds.). 2020. Emergent Syntax for Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihas, Elena. 2015. A Grammar of Alto Perené (Arawak). A Grammar of Alto Perené (Arawak). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2017. Conversational structures of Alto Perené (Arawak) of Peru. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Data Collection.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 32–56. Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Conventions for Multimodal Transcription.” [URL].Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2021. “The Phonetics of Talk in Interaction.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics, ed. by Jane Setter and Rachael-Anne Knight, 657–681. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2007. “Increments in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Introductory Remarks.” Pragmatics 17 (4): 505–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki (eds). 2021. Usage-Based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Yael Maschler, Leelo Keevallik, and Jan Lindström. 2020. “Complex Syntax-in-Interaction: Emergent and Emerging Clause-Combining Patterns for Organizing Social Actions.” In Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action, ed. by Jan Lindström, Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, and Leelo Keevallik, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Leelo Keevallik, and Xiaoting Li. 2022. “Editorial: The Grammar-Body Interface in Social Interaction.” Frontiers in Psychology 13 (April). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1980. “Telling My Side: ‘Limited Access’ as a Fishing Device.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 186–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2006. “A Typology of Good Grammars.” Studies in Language 30 (2): 385–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rüsch, Maren. 2020. A Conversational Analysis of Acholi: Structure and Socio-Pragmatics of a Nilotic Language of Uganda. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. “Notes on Methodology.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Heritage, and J. Maxwell Atkinson, 2–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984. “On Some Questions and Ambiguities in Conversation.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 28–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2000. “Argumente für die Entwicklung einer ‘interaktionalen Linguistik [Arguments for the Development of an ‘Interactional Linguistics’].” Gesprächsforschung (1): 76–95.Google Scholar
(eds). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sicoli, Mark A. 2020. Saying and doing in Zapotec: Multimodality, resonance, and the language of joint actions. London: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Raevaara, Liisa, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds). 2017. Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob. 2001. Sprog i virkeligheden: bidrag til en interaktionel lingvistik [Language in Reality: Contributions to an Interactional Linguistics]. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, Maria Jørgensen, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen, and Søren Sandager Sørensen. 2023. “Toward a Grammar of Danish Talk-in-Interaction: From Action Formation to Grammatical Description.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 56 (2): 116–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, N. 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.” PNAS 106 (26): 10587–92. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig (eds). 2011. Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, and Geoffrey Raymond (eds). 2013. Units of Talk — Units of Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar