Introduction

Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen

Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Anward, J
(2003) On recursivity. Clauses in a dialogical grammar of Swedish. In L.-O. Delsing, C. Falk, G. Josefsson, and H. Sigurδsson (eds.), Grammatik i fokus. Festskrift till Christer Platzack. [Grammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack]. Vol. 2. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk, pp. 17-23.Google Scholar
Auer, P
(2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25.1: 7-36.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31: 1-13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., E. Couper-Kuhlen, and F. Müller
(1999) Language in Time: The rhythm and tempo of spoken interaction. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., and S. Pfänder
(2011) Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In P. Auer, and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: pp. 1-21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(eds.) (2011) Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mourton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M., and S. Kemmer
(2000) Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., E. Reber, and M. Selting
(eds.) (2011) Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C
(1990) Un modèle d’analyse syntaxique “en grilles„ pour les productions orales. Anuario de Psicologia 47: 11-28.Google Scholar
Bybee, J
(1998) The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 34: The Panels. pp. 421-435.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., and S.A. Thompson
(1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23: 378-388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W
(1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P
(1980) Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 127-202.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., and M. Selting
(eds.) (2001) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., and C.E Ford
(eds.) (2004) Sound Patterns in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York NY: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, S., T. Ono, and R. Laury
(2011) Discourse, grammar and interaction. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies. 2nd edition. London: Sage, pp. 8-35.Google Scholar
Curl, T.S
(2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1257-1280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T.S., and P. Drew
(2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41.2: 129-153. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A
(2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen, and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 289-317. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Construction Grammar - eine Grammatik für die Interaktion? In A. Deppermann, R. Fiehler, and T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, pp. 43-65.Google Scholar
(2006b) Konstitution von Wortbedeutung im Gespräch: Eine Studie am Beispiel des jugendsprachlichen Bewertungsadjektivs assi . In A. Deppermann, and T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Bedeuten: Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 158-184.Google Scholar
(2011a) The study of formulations as a key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies 34. 2: 115-128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings. A comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In P. Auer, and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 88-126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., R. Fiehler, and T. Spranz-Fogasy
(eds.) (2006) Grammatik und Interaktion. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschunghttp://​www​.verlag​-gespraechsforschung​.deGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W
(1985) Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 343-365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J
(2001) Towards a dialogic syntax. Ms. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Evans, V., and M. Green
(2006) Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., P. Kay, and M.K. O’Connor
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of let alone. Language 64: 501-538. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ford, C.E
(1993) Grammar in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C.E., B.A. Fox, and S.A. Thompson
(eds.) (2002) The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B.A
(2000) Micro-syntax in English conversation. Paper presented at the conference Interactional Linguistics (sponsored by EURESCO), September, Spa, Belgium.
(2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 9: 299-318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B.A., M. Hayashi, and R. Jasperson
(1996) A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. Interaction and grammar. E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B.A., S.A. Thompson, C.E. Ford, and E. Couper-Kuhlen
(2013) Conversation analysis in linguistics. In J. Sidnell, and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 726-740.Google Scholar
Fried, M., and J.-O. Östman
(eds.) (2004) Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., and J. Bücker
(eds.) (2009) Grammatik im Gespräch. Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., and W. Imo
(eds.) (2006) Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hacohen, G., and E.A. Schegloff
(2006) On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1305-1312. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A
(1989) Keskusteluntutkimuksen tavoitteista ja menetelmistä [On the aims and methods of conversation analysis]. In A. Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I [Ways of Finnish conversation I]. Kieli 4. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki, pp. 9-40.Google Scholar
(1996) Keskustelunanalyysin profiilista ja tilasta [On the profile and state of conversation analysis]. In A. Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja II [Ways of Finnish conversation II]. Kieli 10. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki, pp. 9-22.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., and M. Selting
(eds.) (2005) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hausendorf, H
(ed.) (2007) Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Heinemann, T
(2006) ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081-1104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P
(1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139-157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 155-175.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J
(2004) The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 239-256.Google Scholar
Hopper, P
(2011) Emergent Grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer, and S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 22-44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J., and S.A. Thompson
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251-299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984) The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60.3: 703-752. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., and C.J. Fillmore
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations. The what’s X doing Y construction. Language 75: 1-33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1981) The integration of grammar and grammatical change. Indian Linguistics 42: 82– 135.Google Scholar
(1982) Space grammar, analyzability and the English passive. Language 58: 22-80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In M. Fried, and H.C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Back to the Roots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 157-189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A
(2005) Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen, and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 209-233. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Linell, P
(1998) Approaching Dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2004) On some principles of a dialogical grammar. In K. Aijmer (ed.), Dialogue Analysis VIII: Understanding and misunderstanding in dialogue. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 7-23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Towards a dialogical linguistics. In M. Lähteenmäki, et al.. (eds.), Proceedings of the XII International Bakhtin Conference. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, pp. 157-172.Google Scholar
(2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C
(2006) On the human “interaction engine”. In N.J. Enfield, and S.C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp. 39-69.Google Scholar
(2013) Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell, and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 103-130.Google Scholar
Mondada, L
(2006) Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the close of the sequence. Discourse Studies 8: 117-129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9: 195-226. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42.4: 329-361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M
(1996) Conversational signifying: Grammar and indirectness among African American women. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 405-434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson
(eds.) (1996) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ono, T., and S.A. Thompson
(1995) What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P.W. Davis (ed.), Alternative Linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 213-271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O
(2005) Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman, and M. Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 121-144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H
(1987) Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-27.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., and E.A. Schegloff
(1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., pp. 15-21.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
(1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversations. In J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28-52.Google Scholar
(1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52-133. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff E.A
(2005) On integrity in inquiry… of the investigated, not the investigator. Discourse Studies 7.4–5: 455-480. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., E. Ochs, and S.A. Thompson
(1996) Introduction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-51. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Selting, M
(1996) Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, and M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231-270. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., and E. Couper-Kuhlen
(2001) Forschungsprogramm ‘Interaktionale Linguistik’. Linguistische Berichte 187: 257-287.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.M., and A. Mauranen
(2006) Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating speech and writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., C. Goodwin, and C. LeBaron
(eds.) (2011) Embodied Interaction. Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A., B.A. Fox, and E. Couper-Kuhlen
forthcoming) Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref
Verhagen, A
(2009) The conception of constructions as complex signs: Emergence of structure and reduction to usage. Constructions and Frames 1.1: 119-152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J
(2005) What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 313-342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Embodiment, language and mimesis. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatec, and R. Franck (eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Vol 1: Embodiment. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 297-337.Google Scholar