Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:3 (2017) ► pp.543–576

Negative scope, temporality, fixedness, and right- and left-branching

Implications for typology and cognitive processing

| University of Alberta
| University of California, Santa Barbara
‘Negative scope’ concerns what it is that is negated in an utterance with a negative morpheme. With English and Japanese conversational data, we show that for an English speaker, calculating negative scope requires that recipients incrementally keep track of all the material in the clause that follows the negative morpheme, which comes early in the clause. In contrast, the negative morpheme comes late in the clause in Japanese; thus it would seem that recipients need to hold in memory all the material in the clause preceding the negative until the negative morpheme is produced. Several features of Japanese grammar, however, suggest that this characterization is not accurate. We argue that prosody, grammar, cognition, processing, and fixedness all interact with the grammar of clause organization to afford quite different real-time processing strategies for calculating the assignment of negative scope in languages with different ‘word order’ norms.
Keywords: negative scope, conversation, temporality, prosody, grammar, fixedness, English, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Findings
    • 3.1Negative scope in English conversation
    • 3.2Negative scope in Japanese conversation
      • 3.2.1Clauses in Japanese conversation tend to be very short
      • 3.2.2‘Negative-anticipating’ forms
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
References (121)
References
Auer, Peter. 1996. On the prosody and syntax of turn-taking. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody and conversation, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1). 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Stefan Pfänder. 2011. Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2013. From ‘intonation units’ to cesuring – an alternative approach to the prosodic-phonetic structuring of talk-in-interaction. In Beatrice Szczepek-Reed and Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 91–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Intonation units revisited – Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2007. The wolf in sheep’s clothing: against a new judgement-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics 331. 319–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon & Bertram Malle (eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(3). 575–596.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Patricia. 1980. Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Chafe, Wallace, ed., The pear stories, 127–202. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M., Noriko Akatsuka & Susan Strauss. 1997. Deontic modality and conditionality in discourse: a cross-linguistic study of adult speech to young children. In Akio Kamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 19–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2005. Discovering order. Lingua 1151. 1641–1665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Tsuyoshi Ono (eds.). 2007. Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective. Special issue, Pragmatics 17(4).Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. (In press). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo
Cyffer, Norbert, Erwin Ebermann, and Georg Ziegelmeyer. 2009. Negation Patterns in West African Languages and Beyond. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 171. 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bussser, Rik & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.). 2015. Language structure and environment: social, cultural, and natural factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner. 2015. Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe & Tyko Dirksmeyer. 2014. Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language 38(1). 5–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2014. Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Negative morphemes. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures. [[URL]].
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 63 (4), 805–855.Google Scholar
2003. Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 21, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cumming. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Rampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo (eds.). 2014. Discourse participants in interaction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on subject expression and ellipsis. Special issue, Journal of Pragmatics 631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Beatrice Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1). 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2007. Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 331. 269–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1989. Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (eds.), Language processing in social context, 17–38. Amsterdam: North-Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. The pragmatics of constructions. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), Social interaction, social context, and language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson. 2013. Units or Action Trajectories?: Is the language of grammatical categories the language of social action? In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 13–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 135–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2001. An exploration of prosody and turn projection in English conversation. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 287–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi & Robert Jasperson. 1996. A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 185–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann. 2010. A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 421. 2487–2505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fry, John. 2003. Ellipsis and wa-marking in Japanese Conversation. Oxford: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. [available at [URL]].
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 2002. Time in action. Current Anthropology 431 (Supplement August – October 2002 – Special issue “Repertoires of Timekeeping in Anthropology). S-19–S35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, Wolfgang Imo & Joerg Buecker (eds.). 2014. Grammar and dialogism. Sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli and Margret Selting, eds. 2005. Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-Hye, Dennis Ryan Storoshenko & Yasuko Sakurai. 2004. Scope of negation, and clause structure in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 301. 118–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko. 2015. Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. 2004. Projection and grammar: notes on the ‘action-projecting’ use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 36(8). 1337–1374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John. 1980. Japanese conversation, discourse structure, and ellipsis. Discourse Processes 31. 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1992. Times of the sign: on temporality in recent linguistics. Time and Society 1(2). 223–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2001. Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 145–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfander (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2011b. Emergent grammar. In James Gee & Michael Handford, The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 301–314. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: the multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shimako. 2009. Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes 4561. 226–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The multimodal mechanics of collaborative unit construction in Japanese conversation, in Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, eds Jurgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin and Curtis LeBaron, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp. 106-120.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 1993. The structure of the intonation unit in Japanese. In Soonja Choi (ed.), Japanese and Korean linguistics, vol. III1, 39–53. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2002. “Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. In Joan Bybee and Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 175–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi and Hongyin Tao. 1993. A comparative study of the structure of the intonation unit in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January, 1993.Google Scholar
Jones, Kimberly & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2008. Conversation and grammar: Approaching so-called conditionals in Japanese. In J. Mori & A. Ohta (eds.), Japanese applied linguistics: Discourse and social perspectives, 21–52. London: Continuum International.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 1996. Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 251. 675–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2011. Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. Discourse Processes 48(6). 404–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2008. On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44(2). 379–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In Robert Austerlitz (ed.), The scope of American linguistics, 77–133. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. When intuitions fail. In K. McNair, L. Dolbrin & M. Aucon (eds.), Papers from the parasession on theory and data in linguistics, Chicago Linguistic Society 321: 77–105. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Marianne Celce-Murcia. 2015. The grammar book. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
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, Vol. LXXXVI1, 231–270. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Tsuyoshi Ono. 2010. Recursion in conversation: What speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do. In H. van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and human language, 69–91. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.). 2011. Subordination in conversation: a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J. 2004. The projectability of turn constructional units and the role of prediction in listening. Discourse Studies 6(4). 449–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Bjorn, Peter MacNeilage, and Michael Studdert-Kennedy. 1984. Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. In B. Butterworth, B. Comrie, and O. Dahl, (eds), Explanations for Language Universals, 181–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. A. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistic and Philosophy 101. 325–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: its nature, origins, and transformation. Oxford: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2013. The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: Processes and resources. In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – units of action, 57–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Maruyama, Akiyo. 2003. Japanese wa in conversational discourse: a contrast marker. Studies in Language 27(2). 245–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 2011. On the emergence of adverbial connectives from Hebrew relative clause constructions. In Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: emerging and emergent, 293–331. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Emergent projecting constructions: The case of He-brew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4). 785–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Word order in time: emergent Hebrew (NS)V/VNS syntax. In Arnulf Depperman & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in interaction, 201–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Kazuko. 2003. Intonation units in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Senko K. 1989. Japanese conversation: self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
McGloin, Naomi. 1986. Negation in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Boreal Scholarly Publishers and Distributors, Limited.Google Scholar
Miller, J. 1995. Does spoken language have sentences? In F. R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 116–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & R. Weinert. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nagata, Hiroshi. 1988. The relativity of linguistic intuition: the effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17(1). 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nihongo Bunkei Jiten [A dictionary of Japanese sentence patterns]. 1998. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko. 1988. A discourse-based analysis of complementation in Japanese. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, 223–235.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Sadler, Misumi. 2001. The Status of ‘Canonical’ Transitive Clauses in Japanese Conversations. 11th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko Suzuki. (Forthcoming). Exploration into a new understanding of ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese everyday talk. In Tsuyoshi Ono and Ritva Laury (eds.), Fixed expressions: Building language structure and action.
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson. 1994. Unattached NPs in English conversation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 201. 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P. Davis (ed.), Descriptive and theoretical modes in the new linguistics, 213–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1997. Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’. BLS 231. 481–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku: they’re not just pronouns. Cognitive Linguistics 14(4). 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Fixedness in Japanese adjectives in conversation: Toward a new understanding of a lexical (part-of-speech) category. In Roberta Corrigan, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language, 117–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson & Yumi Sasaki. 2012. Japanese negotiation through emerging final particles in everyday talk. Discourse Processes 49(3–4). 243–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, M.A.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Doctoral dissertation. (Available online at [URL]).
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11. 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: text and talk, 71–93. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno… a usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. JP 321. 105–124.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2007. The empirical basis of linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Barden, Bergmann, Couper-Kuhlen, Gunthner, Meier, Quasthoff, Schlobinsky & Uhmann. 1998. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte 1731: 91–122. GAT – English edition: [URL].
Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, eds. 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. 1995. On projection. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Social intelligence and interaction, 87–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanabe, Toshifumi, Masahito Takahashi & Kosho Shudo. 2014. A lexicon of multiword expressions for linguistically precise, wide-coverage natural language processing. Computer Speech and Language 281. 1317–1339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko. 1999. Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: a study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2000. Turn-projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on language and social interaction 33(1). 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Adverbials for turn projection in Japanese: toward a demystification of the “telepathic” mode of communication. Language in Society 301. 559–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Grammar and the timing of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society 34(3). 389–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1998. A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. In Anna Siewierska & Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case, typology, and grammar, 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Barbara A. Fox. 2015. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Mitsugi, Sanako
2022. Polarity adverbs facilitate predictive processing in L2 Japanese. Second Language Research 38:4 ► pp. 869 ff. DOI logo
Mushin, Ilana & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Linguistic structures in social interaction. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Vatanen, Anna, Tomoko Endo & Daisuke Yokomori
2021. Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Projection in Overlapping Agreements to Assertions: Stance-Taking as a Resource for Projection. Discourse Processes 58:4 ► pp. 308 ff. DOI logo
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Ryoko Suzuki
2020. Chapter 3. Exploration into a new understanding of ‘zero anaphora’ in Japanese everyday talk. In Fixed Expressions [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 315], ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Sadler, Misumi
2020. Japanese negative suffix nai in conversation: Its formulaicity and intersubjectivity. Discourse Studies 22:4 ► pp. 460 ff. DOI logo
Shor, Leon
2020. Chapter 16. Negation in Modern Hebrew. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 583 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.