Linguists generally assume ‘clause’ to be a basic unit for the analysis of grammatical structure. Data from
natural conversations, however, suggests that ‘clause’ may not be grammaticized to the same extent across languages. Understanding
‘clause’ as a predicate (plus any arguments, inferred or expressed), we can show that participants do indeed organize their talk
around ‘clauses’. I argue that English-speaking participants in everyday interaction do indeed orient to clausal units as so
defined, by building their turns around predicates, and that these turns do key interactional work. The data further reveal that
these units must be understood as emergent structures, recurrent patterns in a given language that emerge from humans pursuing
their ordinary interactional business of communicating information, needs, identities, attitudes, and desires.
Benjamin, Trevor. 2013. Signaling trouble: On the linguistic design of other-initiation of repair in English conversation. The Netherlands: University of Groningen Ph.D. dissertation.
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Frequency effects on French liaison. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337–359. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 529–551.
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Camazine, Scott, Jean-Louis Deneubourg, Nigel R. Franks, James Sneyd, Guy Theraulaz & Eric Bonabeau. 2001. Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. What does grammar tell us about action? In Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Approaches to grammar for Interactional Linguistics, Special issue of Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson. Forthcoming. Action ascription in everyday advice-giving sequences. In Depperman, Arnulf and Michael Haugh, eds. Action Ascription: Interaction in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curl, Traci S.2006. Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 381. 1257–1280.
Curl, Traci S. & Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2). 1–25.
Dingemanse, Mark & N. J. Enfield. 2015. Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 11. 98–118.
Du Bois, John W.2003. Argument structure: grammar in use. In Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf, and William J. Ashby, eds. 2003. Preferred argument structure: grammar as architecture for function, 10–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ford, Cecilia E.1993. Grammar in interaction: adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Barbara A.2007. Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 91. 299–318.
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Social Interaction and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 21, 119–143. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson. 2010. Responses to WH-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2). 133–156.
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. [available at [URL]]
Goodwin, Marjorie H. & Charles Goodwin. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010a. Comparative concepts and descriptive: Categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010b. The interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (Reply to Newmeyer). Language 86(3). 696–699.
Hayashi, Makoto, Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell (eds.). 2013. Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hepburn, Alexa & Galina B. Bolden. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 57–76. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John. 2012a. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29.
Heritage, John. 2012b. The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 451. 30–52.
Hopper, Paul J.1998. Emergent grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hopper, Paul. 2000. Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance? In Martin Pütz & Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, Acquisition and Language Pedagogy, 109–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, Paul. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 401. 239–256.
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar, Language 60.4: 703–752.
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2001. “Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 175–202. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2009. I thought it was pretty neat. Social action formats for taking a stance. In S. Slembrouck, M. Taverniers, and M. Van Herreweghe (eds.), From ‘Will’ to ‘Well’. Studies in Linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 293–304. Gent: Academia Press.
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2012. I thought it was very interesting: Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15). 2194–2210.
Kärkkäinen, Elise and Tiina Keisanen. 2012. Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies 14.5: 587–611.
Kendrick, Kobin H.2015. Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics 11. 164–190.
Laury, Ritva, Camilla Lindholm & Jan Lindström. 2013. Syntactically non-integrated conditional clauses in spoken Finnish and Swedish. In Eva Havu & Irma Hyvärinen (eds.), Comparing and Contrasting Syntactic Structures. From Dependency to Quasi-subordination. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki LXXXVI, 231–270. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Levinson, Stephen C.2013. Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Mazeland, Harrie. 2013. Grammar in Conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 475–491. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Nakayama, Toshihide. 2002. Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Morphosyntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pawley, Andrew2008. Compact versus narrative serial verb constructions in Kalam. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Serial verb constructions in Austronesian and Papuan languages, 171–202. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Pawley, Andrew. 2009. On the origins of serial verb constructions in Kalam. In T. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 119–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pawley, Andrew. 2011. Event Representation in serial verb constructions. In Jürgen Bohnemeyer & Eric Pederson (eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition, 13–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A.1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 681. 939–967.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.1989. Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. In Marc H. Bomstein & Jerome S. Bruner (eds.), Interaction in Human Development, 139–153. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scollon, Ronald1976. Conversations with a one year old: A case study of the developmental foundation of syntax. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Shaw, Chloe. 2013. Advice giving in telephone interactions between mothers and their young adult daughters. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University unpublished PhD dissertation.
Shaw, Chloe & Alexa Hepburn. 2013. Managing the Moral Implications of Advice in Informal Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(4). 344–362.
Stirling, Lesley. 1999. Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In Peter Collins & David Lee (eds.), The clause in English: In honour of Rodney Huddleston, 273–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4/5). 481–505.
Thompson, Sandra A., Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Barbara A. Fox. 2015. Grammar and everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. La Polla. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vatanen, Anna. 2014. Responding in overlap: Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki unpublished PhD dissertation.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.