Part of
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 173200
References (52)
Auer, Peter. 2005. “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Syntax als Prozess.” In Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion, ed. by Heiko Hausendorf, 95–142. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avanzi, Mathieu. 2011. L’interface prosodie/syntaxe en Français. Dislocations, incises et asyndètes. Neuchâtel University: Unpublished PhD Thesis .
Berrendonner, Alain. 2003. “Grammaire de l’écrit vs. grammaire de l’oral: le jeu des composantes micro- et macro-syntaxiques.” In Interactions orales et contexte didactique, ed. by Alain Rabatel, 249–264. Lyon: Presses Universitaires.Google Scholar
. 2008. “L’alternance que / #. Subordination sans marqueur ou structure périodique?” In Modèles syntaxiques, ed. by Dan Van Raemdonck, 279–298. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1989. “Constructions verbales ‘en incise’ et rection faible des verbes.” RSFP 9: 53–73.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste Claire, et al. 1990. Le Français parlé. Études grammaticales. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2000. Approches de la langue parlée en Français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Cappeau, Paul and Deulofeu, José. 2001. “Partition et topicalisation: il y en a ‘stabilisateur’ de sujets et de topiques indéfinis.” Cahiers de Praxématique 37: 45–82.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. “On Assessing Situations and Events in Conversation: ‘Extraposition’ and its Relatives.” Discourse Studies 10 (4): 443–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald S. 2012. “An Analysis of the thing is that S Sentences”. Pragmatics 22.1: 41–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational and Pragmatic Resources for the Projection of Turn Completon.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 135–184. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gadet, Françoise. 1992. Le Français populaire. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2006. “‘Was ihn trieb, war vor allem Wanderlust’ (Hesse: Narziss und Goldmund): Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen.” In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Wolfgang Imo, 59–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es .” Gesprächsforschung 9, 86–114. URL: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2008b. “Die ‘die Sache/das Ding ist’ – Konstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch – eine interaktionale Perspektive auf Konstruktionen im Gebrauch.” In Konstruktionsgrammatik II. Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Kerstin Fischer, 157–178. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Paul J. Hopper. 2010. “Zeitlichkeit und sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.” Gesprächsforschung 11: 1–28. URL: [URL]Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2011. “Between Emergence and Sedimentation. Projecting Constructions in German Interactions.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder, 156–185. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Transparent Vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Time in Action.” Current Anthropology 43, Supplement, Aug.–Oct. 2002, 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 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
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Grammatical Constructions and their Discourse Origins: Prototype or Family Resemblance?” In Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, ed. by Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier, and René Dirven, 109–129. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 153–175.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie and Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2014. “‘Pivotage’ in French Talk-in-Interaction: On the Emergent Nature of [Clause-NP-Clause] Pivots.” Pragmatics 24 (3): 593–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1972. “Side Sequences.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 294–338. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jullien, Stéphane. 2007. “Prosodic, Syntactic and Semantico-Pragmatic Parameters as Clues for Projection: the Case of «il y a».” Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28: 283–297.Google Scholar
. 2014. Syntaxe et dialogue. Les configurations syntaxiques en ‘il y a’. Neuchâtel University: Unpublished PhD thesis.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. “Pragmatically Motivated Syntax: Presentational Cleft Constructions in Spoken French.” Chicago Linguistic Society 22 (2): 115–126.Google Scholar
. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas. 1997. “News Delivery Sequences: Good News and Bad News in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (2): 93–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible next Speakers.” Discourse Studies 9 (2): 194–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011a. “Clause-Combining and the Sequencing of Actions: Projector Constructions in French Conversation.” In Subordination in Conversation: a Crosslinguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury and Royko Suzuki, 103–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. “Emergent Grammar for all Practical Purposes: The Online Formating of Dislocated Constructions in French Conversation.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder, 46–88. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher. 2013. “The Patching Together of Pivot-Patterns in Talk-in-Interaction: On ‘Double Dislocations’ in French.” Journal of Pragmatics 53: 92–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2004. “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone ‘so’ in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 185–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984. “On Some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 266–298. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8 (3): 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 1995. “‘On projection’.” In Social Intelligence and Interaction, ed. by Esther N. Goody, 87–110. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object Complements and Conversation – Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26: 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. “The Clause as a Locus of Grammar and Interaction.” Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logo
Valli, André. 1981. “Note sur les Constructions Dites ‘Pseudo-Clivées’ en Français.” Recherches sur le Français Parlé 3: 195–211.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Early Responses: An Introduction. Discourse Processes 58:4  pp. 293 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 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.