Article published In:
The dynamicity of communication below, around and above the clause
Edited by Ben Clarke and Jorge Arús-Hita
[English Text Construction 9:1] 2016
► pp. 5676
References (63)
Acuña Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2005. Aspects of the relationship between theories of grammar and theories of processing. Atlantis 271: 11–27.Google Scholar
Antony, Louise M. 2003. Rabbit-pots and supernovas: On the relevance of psychological data to linguistic theory. In Epistemology of Language, Alex Barber (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 47–68.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2009. On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 311: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Dik. 2005. Agreement: More arguments for the dynamic expression model. In Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Dik & Anna Siewierska. 2004. Towards a speaker model of Functional Grammar. In A New Architecture for Functional Grammar, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & María de los Ángeles Gómez González (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 325–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, Maria & Shulamuth Chiat. 1981. Psycholinguistics without ‘psychological reality’. Linguistics 191: 37–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 891: 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brazil, David. 1995. A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2007. Notes towards an incremental implementation of the Role and Reference Grammar semantics-to-syntax linking algorithm for English. In Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar, Mike Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 275–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. A reappraisal of the functional enterprise, with particular reference to Functional Discourse Grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 671: 13–42.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García. 2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson & Lutz Marten. 2005. The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Andy. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3): 181–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 2013. On the dual nature of the Functional Discourse Grammar model: Context, the language system/language use distinction, and indexical reference in discourse. Language Sciences 381: 83–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Michael. 2006. Ignorance of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
. 1990. How to build a natural language user. In Working with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational Applications, Mike Hannay & Elseline Vester (eds). Dordrecht and Providence RI: Foris, 203–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 251: 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. & J. Kathryn Bock. 2006. The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 211: 1011–1029. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1959. More thoughts on the communicative function of the English verb. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské University A71: 74–98.Google Scholar
. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2004. The complementarity of the process and product interpretations of Functional Grammar. In A New Architecture for Functional Grammar, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & María de los Ángeles Gómez González (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 151–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1989. Mind, Code, and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Grammar, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 73–113.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds). New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, Joan Bresnan & George Miller (eds). 1981. Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hasson, Uri, Asif A. Ghazanfar, Bruno Galantucci, Simon Garrod & Christian Keysers. 2012. Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16 (2): 114–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2005. Dynamic expression in Functional Discourse Grammar. In Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics 24 (2): 203–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hohwy, Jakob. 2013. The Predictive Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2009. Verb-preposition constructions in FDG. Lingua 1191: 1186–1211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The active-passive alternation in English. Pragmatics 24 (2): 399–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch. 2002. Performance Grammar: A declarative definition. In Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, Anton Nijholt, Mariët Theune & Hendrik Hondorp (eds). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 148–162.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2005. Incremental Functional Grammar and the language of football commentary. In The Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives, Christopher S. Butler, María de los Ángeles Gómez-González & Susana Doval-Suárez (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. More tiles on the roof: Further thoughts on incremental language production. In Language Usage and Language Structure, Kasper Boye & Elizabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 263–293.Google Scholar
. 2011. The study of semantic alternations in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar. In Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed.). London: Equinox, 38–61.Google Scholar
. 2012. Cognitive adequacy in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 341: 421–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The contextual component in a dialogic FDG. Pragmatics 24 (2): 249–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. 1962. Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist 111: 748–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 1992. Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language: On Cognition, Functionalism, and Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, Gerard. 2012. A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: The Intonation of Increments. London, New York, New Delhi and Sydney: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
O’Grady, William. 2005. Syntactic Carpentry: An Emergentist Approach to Syntax. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Victor S. Ferreira. 2008. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134 (1): 427–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Steven Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 271: 169–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The use of prediction to drive alignment in dialogue. In Grounding Sociality: Neurons, Mind, and Culture, Gün R. Semin & Gerald Echterhoff (eds). New York: Psychology Press, 175–191.Google Scholar
Riley, Michael A., Michael J. Richardson, Kevin Shockley & Verónica C. Ramenzoni. 2011. Interpersonal synergies. Frontiers in Psychology 2 (38). (Last accessed on 11 June 2015). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1933. La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 301: 247–265.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organisation. In Talk and Social Organisation, Graham Button & John R.E. Lee (eds). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 70–85.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. & Anna Mauranen. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smit, Niels. 2010. FYI: Theory and Typology of Information Packaging. Zutphen NL: Wöhrmann.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1984. Linguistics and psychology. Linguistics and Philosophy 71: 155–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko. 2000. Turn-projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 331: 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2006. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2016. Information structure and production planning. In Oxford Handbook on Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinchiro Ishihara (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, n.a.Google Scholar