Cover not available
Part of
Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual
Edited by Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman
[Handbook of Pragmatics M2] 2022
► pp. 865–884

Linear Unit Grammar

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Chunking ongoing speech
  • 3.Perception of boundaries
  • 4.Types of chunks
    • 4.1Types of “O” elements
    • 4.2Types of “M” elements
  • 5.Linear units of meaning
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Primary data
  • References
Published online: 3 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m2.lin3
References (58)
Primary data
ELFA. 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. [URL].Google Scholar
References
Auer, P. 2005a. “Delayed self-repairs as a structuring device for complex conversation.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by A. Hakulinen and M. Selting, 75–102. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b. “Projection in interaction and projection in grammar.” Text 25: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Zum Segmentierungsproblem in der Gesprrochenen Sprache.” InList 49. [URL]Google Scholar
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biederman, I. 1987. “Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.” Psychological Review 94: 115–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brazil, D. 1995. A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, R. 2013. “‘On the other side’: Formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic EFL.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(2): 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., C. Greaves and M. Warren. 2008. A Corpus-driven Study of Discourse Intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. and N. Chater. 2016. “The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, B. and M. McCarthy. 2015. “Co-constructed turn-taking.” In Pragmatics: A Handbook, ed. by K. Aijmer and C. Ruehlemann, 430–453. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and M. Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. 2001. “The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 87–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. D. 1946. Het Denken van den Schaker. Hilversum: Noord HollandscheGoogle Scholar
1978. Thought and Choice in Chess. Antwerp: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Firth, J. 1968. “A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955.” In Selected papers of J. R. Firth, ed. by F. Palmer, 168–205. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. H. 2002. “Phrases in English.” [URL] (accessed 23 April 2015).
Frank, S., R. Bod and M. H. Christiansen. 2012. “How hierarchical is language use?” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279: 4522–4531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gobet, F., P. C. R. Lane, S. Croker, P.C-H. Cheng, G. Jones, I. Oliver and J. M. Pine. 2001. “Chunking mechanisms in human learning.” Trends in Cognitive Science 5(6): 236–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greaves, C. 2009. ConcGram 1.0: A phraseological search engine [Software]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. and G. Francis. 2000. Pattern Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1974. “Error correction as an interactional resource.” Language in Society 2: 181–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R., W. Meyer-Viol and D. Gabbay. 2001. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kurby, C. and J. Zacks. 2008. “Segmentation in the perception and memory of events.” Trends in Cognitive Science 12(2): 72–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. 1991. “On the syntax of sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LEXIS. [URL]
Mason. O. 2008. “Stringing together a sentence: Linearity and the lexis-syntax interface.” In Language, People, Numbers: Corpus Linguistics and Society, ed. by A. Gerbig and O. Mason, 231–248. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2009a. “Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction.” Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2): 217–233. Reprinted, 2012, in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 1, ed. by D. Biber & R. Reppen, 271-286. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. “Managing interaction: A linear perspective on interactive speech.” In Corpora and Discourse – and Stuff: Papers in Honour of Karin Aijmer, ed. by R. Bower, M. Mobärg and S. Ohlander, 213–221. Göteborg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
2012. “Linear Unit Grammar.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by C. A. Chapelle, 3409–3417. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “Temporality in speech - Linear Unit Grammar.” English Text Construction 9(1): 77–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. J. 2010. “Spoken fluency revisited.” English Profile Journal 1(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. 1956. “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.” Psychological Review 63: 81– 97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monschau, J., R. Kreyer and J. Mukherjee. 2004. “Syntax and semantics at tone unit boundaries.” Anglia-Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 121(4): 581–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. 2001. Form and Function of Parasyntactic Presentation Structures: A Corpus-based Study of Talk Units in Spoken English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, G. 2010. A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: The Intonation of Increments. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 2005. Syntactic Carpentry: An Emergentist Approach to Syntax. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “Language without grammar.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, ed. by P. Robinson and N. Ellis, 139–167. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Renouf, A. and J. McH. Sinclair. 1991. “Collocational frameworks in English.” In English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, ed. by Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg, 128–143. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2013. “Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by M. Hayashi, G. Raymond and J. Sidnell, 41–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH. 1993/2004. “Written Discourse Structure.” In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, ed. by J. McH. Sinclair and R. Carter, 82–101. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1996. “The search for units of meaning.” Textus 9(1): 75–106.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH. and A. Mauranen. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Linear unit discourse analysis: The case of peer group interaction in the HKDSE public examination.” The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 148–160.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and S. T. Gries. 2003. “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2007. “An example of frequent English phraseology: Distributions, structures and functions.” In Corpus Linguistics 25 years on, ed. by R. Facchinetti, 89–106. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vetchinnikova, S. and A. Mauranen. 2017. “Chunking- the cognitive basis of a dynamic grammar.” Paper presented at AAAL 2017 Conference, March 19, Portland, Oregon.
Vetchinnikova, S., A. Mauranen and N. Mikusová. 2017. “Investigating the relevant units of online speech processing.” In INTERSPEECH 2017 – 18th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, August 20–24, Stockholm, Sweden. Proceedings, 811–812.Google Scholar
Willems, R. (ed.). 2015. Cognitive Neuroscience and Natural Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zacks, J. M. and B. Tversky. 2001. “Event structure in perception and conception.” Psychological Bulletin 127: 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zacks, J. M. and K. M. Swallow. 2007. “Event segmentation.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 16(2): 80–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar