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. 117–156

Chapter 5
Structurally ‘incomplete’ social action formats in the grammar of talk-in-interaction?

The case of deontic infinitives in spoken German

The chapter focuses on deontic infinitives, i.e., free infinitives not governed by a matrix clause or an auxiliary; such clauses have not been treated in German reference grammars because they are considered syntactically incomplete. This chapter shows that in contrast to similar practices for requests, directives, and instructions (Gubina & Deppermann frthc.), deontic infinitives implement instructions of a normatively proper procedure or rule, which, in most cases, applies both now and each time this procedure is accomplished. The chapter discusses which features (e.g., sequence and activity context, distribution of agency, epistemic and deontic positionings, etc.) should be included in reference grammars of talk-in-interaction and in current curricula of German as Foreign/Second Language. The chapter concludes by discussing possible challenges for creating a comprehensive grammar of spoken language.
Keywords: social action format, deontic infinitive, rule, instruction, request, agency, epistemics, embodiment, German as Foreign/Second Language, Interactional Linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background: Deontic infinitives and other structurally ‘incomplete’ units in talk-in-interaction
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Delimiting the phenomenon
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Instructions for next steps within an activity
    • 5.2Corrective instructions
    • 5.3Changing tack after failed compliance with prior requests
    • 5.4Ambiguity of deontic stance and degree of obligation in deontic infinitives
  • 6.Conclusion and discussion
    • 6.1Summary and practical implications of the results of the current study
    • 6.2Some (possible) challenges and considerations for creating a comprehensive grammar
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (99)
References
Aldrup, Marit, Küttner, Uwe-A., Lechler, Constanze, and Reinhardt, Susanne (2021). “Suspended assessments in German talk-in-interaction.” In Prosodie und Multimodalität / Prosody and Multimodality, ed. by Maxi Kupetz, and Friederike Kern, 31–66. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag.Google Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos, and Klaus Fischer. 2015. “Dependency Grammar and Valency Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine, and Heiko Narrog, 225–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2007. “Why Are Increments Such Elusive Objects?” Pragmatics 17 (4): 647–658Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B., Alexa Hepburn, and Jonathan Potter 2019. “Subversive Completions: Turn-Taking Resources for Commandeering the Recipient’s Action in Progress.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (2): 144–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. “What Does Grammar Tell Us About Action?” Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 24 (3): 623–647.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Finding a Place for Body Movement in Grammar.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1): 22–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. 2011. “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2. Translated and adapted for English.” Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2007. “‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 17 (4): 513–552.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen Elizabeth, and Margret Selting (eds). 1996. Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(eds). 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew. 2008. “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2): 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. “Deontische Infinitivkonstruktionen: Syntax, Semantik, Pragmatik und interaktionale Verwendung [Deontic Infinitive Constructions: Syntax, Pragmatics and Interactional Use].” In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion [Constructions in the Interaction], ed. by Susanne Günthner, and Wolfgang Imo, 239–262. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht [Grammar and Semantics from a Conversation-Analytic Perspective]. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Lean Syntax: How Argument Structure is Adapted to Its Interactive, Material, and Temporal Ecology.” Linguistische Berichte 263: 255–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Alexandra Gubina. 2021. “When the Body Belies the Words: Embodied Agency with darf/kann ich? (“May/Can I?”) in German.” Frontiers in Communication 6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2014. “Requesting: From Speech Act to Recruitment.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehmer, Oliver, and Geert Brône. 2021. “Instructing Embodied Knowledge: Multimodal Approaches to Interactive Practices for Knowledge Constitution.” Linguistics Vanguard 7 (s4): 20210012. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehmer, Oliver, Florence Oloff, Henrike Helmer, and Silke Reineke (eds). 2021. ““How to Get Things Done” — Aufforderungen und Instruktionen in der multimodalen Interaktion. Einführung in das Themenheft [Requests and Instructions in Multimodal Interaction. Introduction to the Special Issue].” Gesprächsforschung: Themenheft “How to get things done” — Aufforderungen und Instruktionen in der multimodalen Interaktion 22: 670–690.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns”. 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. 2002. “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 14–38. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1993. The Human Tutorial Dialogue Project. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Sandra A. Thompson. 2010. “Responses to wh-Questions in English Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (2): 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, and Trine Heinemann. 2019. “Telescoping Responses to Requests: Unpacking Progressivity.” Discourse Studies 21 (1): 38–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi, and Robert Jasperson. 1996. “Resources and Repair: A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Syntactic Organization of Repair.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 185–237. 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 (9): 2487–2505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, Norbert. 1983. Syntaktische und semantische Studien zum frei verwendeten Infinitiv und zu verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen [Syntactic and Semantic Studies on the Freely Used Infinitive and Related Phenomena in German]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Zu einer Randgrammatik des Deutschen [On a Peripheral Grammar of German].” In Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik [Sentence Mood Between Grammar and Pragmatics], ed. by Jörg Meibauer, 75–95. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. “Footing.” In Forms of Talk, ed. by Erving Goffman, 124–159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2012. “German oh: Marking an Emotional Change of State.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 45 (3): 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gubina, Alexandra. 2021. “Availability, Grammar, and Action Formation. On Simple and Modal Interrogative Request Formats in Spoken German.” Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 22: 272–303.Google Scholar
Gubina, Alexandra, and Arnulf Deppermann. frthc. “Action formation of Requests in German: Interactional and Pragmatic Factors Affecting the Choice of Linguistic Formats.”
Günthner, Susanne. 2017. “Diskursmarker in der Interaktion — Formen und Funktionen univerbierter guck mal- und weißt du-Konstruktionen [Discourse Markers in Interaction — Forms and Functions of Univertized guck mal- ‘Look’ and weißt du- ‘You Know’ Constructions].” In Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen [Discourse Markers in German. Reflections and Analyses], ed. by Hardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 103–130. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 1999. “Where Grammar and Interaction Meet: A Study of Co-Participant Completion in Japanese Conversation.” Human Studies 22: 475–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hazel, Spencer, and Kristian Mortensen. 2019. “Designedly Incomplete Objects as Elicitation Tools in Classroom Interaction.” In Objects, Bodies and Work Practice, ed. by Dennis Day, and Johannes Wagner, 216–249. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Tanya Stivers. 1999. “Online Commentary in Acute Medical Visits: A Method of Shaping Patient Expectations.” Social Science & Medicine 49 (11): 1501–1517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 2001. “Technologies, Texts, and Affordances.” Sociology 35 (2): 441–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang, and J. Philipp Lanwer (eds.). 2020. Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik [Prosody and Construction Grammar]. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 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 Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 309–336. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “What Does Embodied Interaction Tell Us about Grammar?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina, Mirka Rauniomaa, and Pentti Haddington. 2014. “Suspending Action: From Simultaneous to Consecutive Ordering of Multiple Courses of Action.” In Multiactivity in Social Interaction, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Maurice Nevile, Lorenza Mondada, and Tiina Keisanen, 109–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2002. “Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting Knowledge Displays in Error Correction Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (3): 277–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society 20 (3): 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in The Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 151–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, Oskar, Gustav Lymer, and Christian Greiffenhagen. 2015. “The Sequential Analysis of Instruction.” In The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction, ed. by Numa Markee, 142–157. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lütten, Jutta. 1979. “Die Rolle der Partikeln doch, eben und ja als Konsensus-Konstitutiva in gesprochener Sprache [The Role of the Particles doch, eben, and ja as Consensus Constituents in Spoken Language].” In Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache [The Particles of the German Language], ed. by Harald Weydt, 30–38. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikesell, Lisa, Galina B. Bolden, Jenny Mandelbaum, Jeffrey D. Robinson, Tanya Romaniuk, Alexa Bolaños-Carpio, Darcey Searles, Wan Wei, Stephen M. DiDomenico, and Beth Angell. 2017. “At the Intersection of Epistemics and Action: Responding with ‘I know’.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50 (3): 268–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. “The Organization of Concurrent Courses of Action in Surgical Demonstrations.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, ed. by Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron, 207–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Instructions in the Operating Room: How the Surgeon Directs Their Assistant’s Hands.” Discourse Studies 16 (2): 131–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. “Appendix II: Multimodal Transcription Conventions.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Chase W. Raymond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2007. The Interactional Meanings of Quasi-Pronouns in Korean Conversation. In Person Reference in Interaction, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 203–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oloff, Florence. 2017. “Genau als redebeitragsinterne, responsive, sequenzschließende oder sequenzstrukturierende Bestätigungspartikel im Gespräch [Genau as Speech-Internal, Responsive, Sequence-Closing, or Sequence-Structuring Confirmation Particles in Conversation].” In Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen [Discourse Markers in German. Reflections and Analyses], ed. by Hardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 207–232. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Parry, Ruth. 2013. “Giving Reasons for Doing Something Now or at Some Other Time.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 46 (2): 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2018. “Elaborations on L2 Interactional Competence: The Development of L2 Grammar-For-Interaction.” Classroom Discourse 9 (1): 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Persson, Rasmus. 2017. “Fill-in-the-Blank Questions in Interaction: Incomplete Utterances as a Resource for Doing Inquiries.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50 (3): 227–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, Martin. 2015. Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen [Self-repair in German]. Berlin: de Gryuter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 2007. “Common Ground in Interaction: The Functions of Medial doch.” In Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Kerstin Fischer, 67–87. Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies 9: 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proske, Nadine. 2017. “Zur Funktion und Klassifikation gesprächsorganisatorischer Imperative [On the Function and Classification of Conversational Organizational Imperatives].” In Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen [Discourse Markers in German. Reflections and Analyses], ed. by Hardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 73–102. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa. 2017. “Adjusting the Design of Directives to the Activity Environment: Imperatives in Finnish Cooking Club Interaction.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 381–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase W. 2019. “Intersubjectivity, Normativity, and Grammar.”  Social Psychology Quarterly 82 (2): 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase W., Jeffrey D. Robinson, Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompson, and Kristella Montiegel. 2021. “Modulating Action through Minimization: Syntax in the Service of Offering and Requesting.” Language in Society 50 (1): 53–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Chase W. Raymond (eds). 2024. The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–48. Killsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Wittgenstein and Categorization Research in Cognitive Psychology.” In Meaning and the Growth of Understanding, ed. by Michael Chapman, and Roger A. Dixon, 151–166. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2012. “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.”  Discourse Processes 49 (5): 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The Request System in Italian Interaction. [PhD dissertation]. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Composite Social Actions: The Case of Factual Declaratives in Everyday Interaction.”  Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (4): 379–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “The Recruitment System in Italian.” In Getting Others to Do Things. A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments, ed. by Simeon Floyd, Giovanni Rossi, and Nick J. Enfield, 147–201. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism in Conversation’s Turn-Taking Organization.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. “Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation.”  Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (1): 99–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas. 2016. “Good Practices in the Compilation of FOLK, the Research and Teaching Corpus of Spoken German.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21 (3): 396–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2001. “Fragments of Units as Deviant Cases of Unit-Production in Conversational Talk.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 229–258. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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, Susanne Uhmann. 2009. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2) [Conversation Analytic Transcription System 2 (GAT 2)].” Gesprächsforschung 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2001. “Forschungsprogramm „Interaktionale Linguistik“ [Research program “Interactional Linguistics”].” Linguistische Berichte 187: 257–287.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skogmyr Marian, Klara. 2021. “Assessing without Words: Verbally Incomplete Utterances in Complaints.” Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 689443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 1996. “On Repeats and Responses in Finnish Conversation.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Liisa Raevaara. 2014. “On the Grammatical Form of Requests at the Convenience Store: Requesting as Embodied Action.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 243–268. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. 2005. “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2): 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. The Book of Answers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structural [Elements of Structural Syntax]. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. “The Clause as a Locus of Grammar and Interaction.”  Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 481–505. 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
Urbanik, Pawel. 2021. Directives in the Construction Site: Grammatical Design and Work Phases in Second Language Interactions with Crane Operators. Journal of Pragmatics 178: 43–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, Harald. 1993. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache [Text Grammar of the German Language]. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. 2015. “Extreme-Case Formulations.” In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Sally. 2002. “Talking with Your Mouth Full: Gustatory mmms and the Embodiment of Pleasure.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (3): 311–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zeschel, Arne. 2017. “Denken und wissen im gesprochenen Deutsch [Think and know in Spoken German].” In Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch [Motion Verbs and Mental Verbs in Spoken German], ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Nadine Proske, and Arne Zeschel, 249–335. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Grammar of German Language]. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2016. Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Recruiting Assistance and Collaboration in Polish.” In Getting Others to Do Things. A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments, ed. by Simeon Floyd, Giovanni Rossi, and Nick J. Enfield, 281–324. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar