THE NEW PSYCHOLOC;Y

OF LANGUAGE
Cognitive and Functional
Approaches to Language Structure
*
Volume 2
Edited by
Michael Tomasello
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthmtJolo,
Leipzig, Germany
m lAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS
2003 Mahwah, New Jersey LIHldon
4
Social Interaction and Gramrnar
Cecilia E. Ford
0/ Wiswnsin
BarbaraA Fox
UnitlP1:I'ity Colomdo
SandraA Thompson
Cali/omia, Santa Barliam
In this chaplerwe sharesome ofwhatwe find valuableabout thestudy 01
grammaras sets ofpractices adapted to social interaction. Clearly, \\(' <LIT
notabletocoverall theEtscin<llingandfruitful research thaI hasappeared
in this area in recent years, butwe hope. through sc"eral examples from
ourown work ami through references 10 otherresearch. to spark filltiIcl
interest ill the reader. To begin with. let liS cOllsider how we cOllccjy(, of
grammarand thenhowthatrelatestothecentralityofsocial interanioll as
a major habitat to which grammar is adapted.
Ininteractionalseuings.we canseegTammar"at work." Bystlldyingpeo-
ple talking, we can gain a deeperappreciation or what gramll1ar n1llst he
understood to he. Three major contributiolls to ollr IllIderSI<llldillg or
gr;lmmar have arisen from this on grammar al work.
Thetirstoftheseis, inouropinion,oneofthemostsignificantCOl1tribu-
tions to recentlinguisticscholarship, a view oflinguisticstructltn iIsclf
rootedin,andshapedby, everydaylanguagelise (Bybee, Hl9!i. 19QH, :dOOI.
in press; Hopper, 1987; Langacker, 19H7). This process or"gralllIll<llici,a-
tion" is an ongoingone. Thusgrammarcannotbea fixed proptTt\"ol'hu-
man br-ains. but is emergent, constantly undergoing revision as it j, de-
ployed and redesigned in everyday talk.
Thesecondis a recognitionthat iflinguisticsis toincludean<lCCOIIIl
forlanguagein everydaylise, thellitsperspective011 thenatureof gr:ll11Illar
mllstbebothcognitivelyrealisticaswellasinteractionallysensible.C()l1wr-
satjonal data the position thatgrammaris a rather looselY orgall-
119
120 121 FORD, FOX, TIIOM.PSON
ized setof sortedandcategorized memorieswe have ofhowspeakers have
resolved recurrentcOfIunlinicative problems (Hopper, 19R7, 19R1:I; Weber,
, Edellllan (1992) suggested that the human brain is exquisitely
to he"erygood at remembering, storing,categorizing,and
routines that have proven useful for solving everyday problems; with f1-e-
quell! repetition,assynapses hecomestrengthened,these rOlllil1eshecome
as habils, Grammarcan thlls beseen as a collection ofnystal-
lizationsoflinguistic Hmtillt's (llybee, 199H, 2001, ill press; Bybee, Perkins,
& Pagliuca, 199,1; Baiman, 1998; Lal1gacker,
AthirdcontributiontoOllrunderstandingof grammaratworkis thedis-
covery that grammaris tightly intertwined with the interanional activities
" that people al'e in (Auer, 1992, 1996; Clark, 1996a, 1996b; Good-
win &Goodwin, I 1992a, I992b; Schegloff, 1995, 1996a, 1996b). One
way inwhich theseactivitiesimplicate'then,illlreofgrammaris thatcertain
cenain recurrent kinds ofgrammar. Forex-
posingquestionsandgivinganswershavea
numberofgrammatical consequences (Heritage &Roth, 199[); Schegloff,
1996b; Weber. But activities can be seen to implicate grammarat
IlloresubtlelevelsaswelLThereisc\'idcnceill favOi'of aviewof the"clause"
as beingcloselyrdalCdwith theway inwhich people managethegive-ancl-
takeof theirlinguisticinteraction,ill otherwords,with theway theynegoti-
ate tmns,witll thebusinessof whowill talkwhen in theserviceoflargerac-
tivities, Vvllatactivities tlieyarcengagedin hasheenshown to havemuchto
do with the grammatical shape that turns take,
the far-reaching implications ofthis approach to grammaris a
f(JCUS on local, often collocational, rather than global, patterns (Bybee,
19R5, 19R9, 1995,2001, ill press),Totakcjustolleexample,letusconsider
what the data tell liS ahout systematic local patterns in usage that suggest
that speakers stOl'C and retrieve indivi{itJaI verbs as slich rather than as
members of "classes," The English verb TI'171f'lIIber is typically considered to
hea memberoftheclassofll'ansitiveverbsthatcantaketwo lypesof "direct
object": it can take an ordinal" nOlln phrase as a direct object, as in:
(I) Shl' 1'('lIlfrllbn'('({ her keys I
and it can occur as a "complelllent-laking predicate" (Noonan, "''''!,
meallingthatitcan occurwith a "complement"clause as its directobject,
such as that J had lorked Ihe door in a sentence like:
(2) J Ff'mnnhem{ that I had locked the door
IOUI'examp!!'s haY<' lWCll lakc" frmll amnllberofsources. We haV(' not attempted 10 r('-
transcribe Ihetn, bill have left Ihem a.S the authors whose works We art' tiling' have them. A
\ranscriplion ,",HllUflrll-Y is provided ill the Appendix. Ex.lI11ples in italics an' CO]lSLrtKted.
'1. SOCIAL INTERACTION AND
Inparticularwffu'mberisconsideredtobeacomplement-takingprCCllr<lte 111
the class of "private verbs" (Biber, 191:18; Quirk, Crccnbaulll, 1.('('c\1 , &
Svanvik, 19R[)) or"verbs ofcognition" (Giv6n, 19HO; Noonan, 19iFl), The
construction ofsllch classesof vel'bs is based011 setsofimaginedSCIlt C!lces
wherebyrernembercan beviewedasbehavinglikeotherverbs lhat takesimi-
larcClllmlementsandhavesimilarmeaningsinvolvingcognition,Stlcl! as:
1 thought that I had lorked the door
I said that I had locked the door
I discovered thai I had lo('kf'd thl' door
J hoped that I had locked the door
J forgot that I had lockf'd the door
1 realized that J had locked the dour
Groullded in idealizeddataofthis type, the class oftramill\'('
verbs ofcognition, with remember as a prototypical exemplar,
seemsrobust. However,Tao (20(H), inanextensivecorpllsstud,ortheac-
tualeverydayusageoftheverb n'llu'mba, drewsomesurprisingcOllclusions,
whichseriollslychallengethisviewef classesof verhsasfallingilltoIleat GiI-
eguriesbasedonimaginedsimilaritiesinsyntactichehaviorand
a numberof vd.iuable results,of particularrelevanceto0111' poiIII
here is Tao's (2001) finding that (a) r('ml'mber ral'ely takes a (oJ1lpkmcllI
clause,and (b) the in which rnnnnlil'l'OCCllrSarcunlike those
inwhichothermembersoftheillusol)'classofcognilin'verbsOCClll. IICI'c
isa typicalenvironment{()rrenurmbel; froma conversatiollbetweell ,I pairoi
fiances:
(4) remember,
@@@
JEFF: gonnaspend the restofyour life with lll='C.
Tao noted that in this example, the verb remembrl' is Ilsed (in the prescnt
tense) without any OCCllrs as an imperative, forms an intonation
phraseofits OWIl, andis followed by a pause, Syntactically, it is possible to
this example as either a verh wmnnber followed hya cOlllplemcnt
clanse oras a discourse particlef{)llowed bya main clause. Tao
that the prosody, rhythm, and pausingall support the second
Here is another typical environment for remembl'l':
LOIS: she prohably remem[bers].
JANICE: [uh EvJ
EVELYN: fJ don't remember.
In ,theverbrememberoccllrs twice. Inthe lirstinstance,italsohas110 di-
reCi. (eithera nOlln phrase ora complementclause), OCClI!S in Ihe
122
123 FORD, FOX, THOMPSON
presenttense,andtinishesa turn.Inthesecondinstance,itoccllrswith the
pronounJ, again has no direct (eithera noun phrase ora comple-
ment clause), occurs in the negative in the present tense, and tinishes a
turn. Tao's qnantitative analysis revealed that these are among the highly
recurrent properties ofinstances ofremember in the data.
Tao concluded that "the entire notion of fnnembf'l' as a complement-

takingcognitiveverbshouldbecalledintoquestion,"arguingthat his find-
ings strongly supported an analysis in which l'emf'rllbf'J'is seen as an inter-
actional markerofepistemicstance, rather than as a memberofa class of
transitive cognitive verbs. That is, from an interactional pointofview, re-
mernbn is bestunderstood as a markerthatindexes thespeaker'sstance to-
warda stateofaffairs. In the case ofan example like (4), italso invites the
listener'satfiliationwith thisstance,andinthecaseofan examplelike (.1',
itindexes thespeaker'suncertainlytoward thestateofafTairs as a response
to a previous speaker's invitation to provide information.
Wefind Tao'sstudycompellinglyrevealinginshowingsomeoftheways
in which an analysis ofactual language usc in ordinary interactional con-
'.
texts suggests a very differentpicture ofthe storage and retrieval ofgram-
matical patterns thanwhatwe would imaginefrom workingwith idealized
data. In particular, we see patterns emergingat a very local collocational
level (whatsome linguists have referred toas "syntagmatic") ratherthan at
a more global level ofstored classes of types ofwords and mOI'phemes
(what some linguists have refelTed to as "paradigmatic").
Such findings reinforce theview that grammaris a setoflocal regulari-
ties: theyfurthershowusthatthediscoveryoftheseregularitiesdependsOil
a studyofinteractional talkengagedin by peoplegoingabouttheirevery-
dayactivities. Thuswe undel'standgrammarasa minimallysortedandor-
ganized set ofmemories ofwhat people have heard and repeated over a
lifetime oflanguage use, a set offorms, patterns, and practices that have
arisentoservethemostreClllTenttimctionsthatspeakerstindneedtofuUil!.
Consideringlanguage Ii'om this perspective, conversational interaction
is theontogeneticallyand phylogencticallyfirst habitatforlanguagedevel-
opmentanduse, and thatitis thearenaorlanguage usefromwhichother
usesderive (ChaCe, 1991;Fillmore, 19HI; Schegloff, 1996b, inin alia).
Any adequate account ofgralllmar, what has been taken to be linguistic
"',
structure, must, then, include attcntion to the functions oflanguage in
"
<
face-to-face ill tcractioll.
Muchfruitful research in discourselinguistics overthe pastseveraldec-
ades hasconcentratedoncognitiveprocessingandinformationpackaging
as thefunctional basesforlinguisticstructurc,andworkOil grammarin in-
teraction certainly maintains and builds on that understanding. However,
in the "primordial" (ScheglotT, 1993, 1996a, 1996b) sitc oflanguage use,
such processingand packagingfunctionsare always intertwinedwith, and
in simultaneolls service of, social interactional functions.
4. SOCIAL INTERACTION AND CRAM\1,\R
In the following section, we presentlive examples, frol1l 01lI' work and
from thatofcolleagucs,oftheclosetitbetweengral1lmarandsocialinterac-
tion. We have chosen t.hese examplesbecause theydisplaya wide range of
ways inwhich grammarhas beenshown to be intimatelyrelated lO theso-
cial actions thatpeopleareinvolved in when they talk. Westart "ithsho\\'-
inghowgrammaris relatedtothewaypeopleCOilstnlCt turns, thCll moveto
a discllssionofgrammarandsequencesofturns. Nextwe lalkabout the in-
timate ways in which grammaris involved in the way people repair utter-
ances.\Ve concludewith twospecificandillllch-discussedareasofgrammar
thatrecentresearch has shown to also beintilllalely intt'rl\\'illed II'ith, alld
ultimately cxplainable in terms of, social interaction.
THESOCIALRELEVANCEOFGRAMMAR:
CASESINPOINT
CoparticipationandtheConstructionofTurns
The fact that talk in interaction is prodnced in the presence of active
coparticipantsbringsintoplaytheconst.antrelevanceofhowandwhenad-
dressees produce responsive behaviors. Thereareat least two rar-reaching
implications of the socially distributed nature of lalk-in-illteraclion: The
first has t.o dowith thegrammaroC turn constructioll as a resollrce for the
predictionofupcomingpointsforspeakerchange.Thesecondillvolves the
inputofaddressccsandhowa speakercanusc th,lt inputas asOllrce ti)J' IT-
vision and extension in the production ora single turn.
With respect to the units ofturn building, it is clear thal illteractants
both build their own turns and closely monilor their interioclitors' turns
withspccialattentiontorecurrentgrammaticalandprosodictrajectories. II'
thiswere nottrue, pauseswould nothave theclearmeanings t theycvi-
dentlydohaveininteractioll.Apause,froma cognitiveperspcctivc,is regn-
larlytaken toreflectprocessingtime. However, in real time,oll-iille interac-
tion, one's verbalizations and one's "lapse tilllc" is always givcn a social
meaning. Research on interaction demonstrates une'luivocallv that split
seconds of silence in talk are points of hcightened soci,d siglliticance,
points where who will speak nextand how they will speak arc at issue. A
pause, though havingnoverbal realityfrom a traditionallingllisticpointof
view,canbeinterpretedinverypreciseways byinterlocntors.Inanoft-cited
casefromalecturebyHarveySacks (1987),we findaspeakerrespondingto
a pause by revising a question to what is esselltially its opposite:
(6) A: They have a good cook there?
((pause))
124
125 FORD, FOX, THOMPSON
A: Nothing special?
B: No, everybody takes lheil- turns,
As can be seen from
meaning is attached to emergent
completeturns.
f()r
ofa previolls turn's
early, both
lion,grammarandprosodyarenotonlyproducedwithreferencetotheen-
codingofinformation, they are also crtlciallydeployed and monitored in
orderfor speakers to achieve turn transfer. Analysts working with
conversalional data have termed this propertyofturn construction "pro-
jectability" (Sacks,Schegloff,&.Jefferson,1974),andgrammarhasbeenim-
plicated as a central resource for the projection ofturn trajectories.
Theevidc>nt attentionthatspeakersgive toslllooth tllrn transferhassig-
nificantconseqnencc>sfortheways inwhichgrammarhasarisen within the
massively rc>currentfunctional environmentofturn construction (Sacks et
aI., 1974,p. 721; 1999, 1996a, 1996b).Theworkof Lerner(1991,
has shown how transition spaces are
salience, with early start'> ofHext tllrns de-
asa meansforemphasizingpriorknowledgeofwhatis encodedin
theoverlappedturn.Neitherthecollaborativeproductionofturnsnorthe
strategic deployment ofuptake timing is possible in the absence ofthe
oft.he unitin progress.Thisconstant needformanagingtllrn
projection bas dear implications for an account of the psycholinguistic
processesoflanguageproductionininteractioll.Wesee theexplorationof
projectabilityasanareainwhichmllchresearchis neededandtowhichthe
attention ofpsychologists could be ofgreat vallie.
Asecondconsequenceofthedynamicsocial contextoflanguageliSe in
interanionrelatestothemannerinwhichgrammaticalunitscanberevised
and duringtheirproduction,allowingaspeakertoberespoI1-S-ivc
tohisorherinterlocutore\'enifthataddl'esseehasnotyetproducedaver-
bal response. Although sentences have traditionally been analyzed as fin-
ishedunitsandas Droductsof
dresseeverbalandnonverbal responsesin the
pear to be a authored tHrn (Goodwin,
Thework ofCharlesGoodwin has been essential in demonstrating the
interrelatednessofchlllseg-ramm<lI'alldtherealtimecOllstructionoflllrns,
4. SOCIAL INTERACTION AND CRAMtvt.\R
especially as concerns the extension ofclauses to meet lllter;j('lloll;!1 de-
mands. Goodwin (1979, 1981, 19R9) has argucd that ill building
dausesa speakermaychange thecourseof,add to, orextend.;\ clallst'-ill-
pI-ogress in direct and documentahle response to interactional cOllsider-
ations, considerations that emerge as the turn itself' is being dnclopcd.
OnecasethatGoodwinhasextensivelyexaminedinvolvesa IIII'll tItat is pro-
duced by a single speaker, but Ihat ill ils incwllwntal extensions is ad-
dressed toseveral differentspeakers ulltil adequate llptakt is olkrcd.\\,e
thissentencehere,with eachextension past a ])olnt oi
a separate line:
(7) I gave, 1gave lip
2 l-uh: one-one week ago
today.
4 actually.
WhatGoodwin showed is thateach ofthese additionsCOllies as a result oj
problems with the response ofa potential addressee, as visible fmm the
gaze ofthespeaker. Goodwin furtheraccounted for the m<lIlIHT ill \\hich
each added unit is built notonly to extelld the grammaroftile prC\ious
onebutt.o provideinformation thatis ofparticularrelevance fora 1\('\\
dressee.NoteforexamplethattheIInitinlilies I,md:lwouldlIothe"n('\\,s"
forthespeaker'swife, buttheunitsaddedat ;111<1 4wouldrecOlllextllali/('
the turnas beinga realization that the speakercould besh;lIing with his
towardwhomthe gazesduringlines2 and3. What is
abolltthis case andGoodwin'sanalysis ofit is that this llttnanc(' alilld 1)('
viewedasasinglesentence,thatis,ashavingbecllplannedassHchfrom the
verybeginning.Thismay,in bejustwhatthespeakertriestopullon
adding the increments he docs. However, ifwe look at the utter-
ancein real time, andin visual andembodied spac(', we canscc thc II'm it
unf<,llds through an interactional give and take.
Building on research with tllrn projection amI turn extcllsion, Ford
(1993) examined the particular work ofac\vcl'bi;d cbust's in illtcraCliou.
Significantly,adverbialclausesIT\ay beplacedeitherbeforeorafterthe ma-
terial they modify. In naturally occurriug interaction, the lise of such
clallses in initial position can bea resollrce for constructingIOllger turns.
Thisworksbecauseinitialplacementof theadverbialclauseprojectsat
onemoreclausebeforea pointof completionis reached.AspC<lkercanex-
this and,alterusingtheadverbialclause,heorshecanpar-
addmorematerial beforecominl[to thenT";,,,torl
thisstrategysuccessfully managesthe
system,which encourages
thatpauseswhen
126
127
FORD, FOX. TlIOMPSON
In thefollowingexample,notetheway thatVinterrupts theprogressof
hertllrn toilltrodllcea coudilionaldause,atthearrow. Insodoing,sheis
abletoproducea ratherlongutterancebe[()reshecomestoa pointofpos-
sible turn complt'tion.
(H) V:
So the doctol's said, that tl1f'Y would- (0.3)

IF he: (0.5) didn'twanna keep being active,
an' do Sports n' thillgs, right now, at his age,
an' with the bad condition of his knee,
they normally putill a plastic knet'.
HadV completedthe turnasshebeganit, thatis, with themainclause
shewould havereacheda possiblepointof grammaticalcompletion bd()]'e
she had added the crucial condiliolls Oil this case, as illustrated in
Constructed
V: So tlie dorton said that
would 11OI71Ullly
til. a
knee.
Froma purelycognitiveprocessing;perspenive, thischoiceof pn::sentation
format could be explained in termsofin[(mnationstructuringofa differ-
emsort (see Chafe, 1984: Ford & Thompson, 1986), but given what we
knowabollt thecOlltingenciesofturnprojectionand turntransfer,itwould
make the most sense to consider both information flow and social inter-
actional exigencies in accounting ['x the ways that speakers deploy such
grammatical options in conversation.
Inline\vitII Goodwin'8 observationsregat'dingturnextensionin thef;tce
ofproblemswith addressee uptake, Ford (1993) alsofound f(.'CHlTent pat-
ternsin theuseof addedadverbialclausesafterpossibly- completeturns. In
thefollowingexample,anadvel'bi'llclauseis addedafternoimmediateup-
take from an addressee.
(10)
R's back pain
A: .hhh Well do VOl!
,
think it's: UllHll
--
alun (0.2)
stress?
(.)

a lotofback- I know hack pain, (0.2)
comes with stress.
R: .hhh I'm thinking it might be uh (0.2) I urn:
(0.5) I haven't ever had- allh directly
!!ysical symptoms ofstress and it could
easily- be that,
The addressee finally does provide some fonn ofuptake after the added
but it is worth noting that the uptake is not demonstrative ofa
4. SOCIAl. INTERACTION AND GRAMIVl:,\R
strong agreement. The format ofR's respollse shows many of1Ill' proto-
typicalsignsof whatmight bestbetermedweakagreement.In EKl, thepar-
ticle Well is a regular preface to fully disagreeing turns: R's agrecment is
far from a wholehearted one.
TheEnglish adverbial clause representsa traditional grallllll<ltlct! cate-
gory,Olle thathasa longhistoryill thesentence-leveldescription ofclause
combiningandalsohasa historyof semanticanalysisin termsofslIdl cate-
gories ofconditionality and causality. Recent discourse anah,tic I(,search
hasshown thesignificanceofadverbial clauseJ)lacemcntin reLili()ll to ill-
formation structuring (Chafe, 19H4;
analysis has led to ourunderstandingofthe diiferentlevelsat \\Ilidl such
clauseconnectionscanbeoperating(Sweetser, 1990).Whatwe wouldsub-
mit, however, is that in addition to these in/()rl1lation and sClll,tlltic proc-
esses thata speakermustattend to, in naturallyocclllTing a
speakermustcruciallyandcontinuouslyattendtothecontingcllcil'softurn
constructionandturn transfer. In real interaction, individualspeakersare
always accountable to these interactional exigencies, and there is neyer a
lapseinwhich theyareoffthehook,so tospeak. Fora completerlluctional
accountoftraditionalgrammatical categories,we need tolook beyondiso-
latedsentences,andwe also need to look heyond monologic
ofthenaturalconditionsoflanguageproductionandprocessingdemands.
In thecaseofadverbialclauses, usageis responsive to moment-to-moment
interactional contingencies, whethel' the need to project further talk be-
yonda singleclause,ortheinteractionalproblemoflackofimlllediateup-
take from theaddressee.Thus, in orderfor psychological accountsorlan-
guagetocorneto termswith theubiquitollsuseoflanguageill interaction,
pause time, for example, needs to be considered as an interan ion'll IT-
sourceratherthanonlya rel1cctiol1 oflapscdtimewith respecttocognitive
processing.
Grammar and Interactional Sequences
The production ofa tnrn involves all ordered progression tllWllgl1 a \,(')-
structured action, and the operation orturn takhlg depends on all
onleringof speakingopportunities.Lookingatyetanotherkind orconver-
sational structure,weobserve thatinteractanlsorganize theirtalk illto IIn-
f()lding activities-predictaW_<:, yet collaboratively and contingently COI1-
structed,sequences.Sequences,thus, involve the temporaland
orderingofactions in interaction. Certainactions arc expectable orrele-
vantaftercertainotheractions. Thisobselvationhasled todOCllnH'lltatioll
ofspecific sequence types. Sequencestructure has been demonstrated
researchonpairedutterances ("adjacencypairs"),preferredresponsetypes
and shapes (Pomerantz, 1984: Sacks, 1987), and the interactional CllHT-
129 128
FORD, FOX, THOMPSON
gence of special speaking roles sllch as those manifested in
sequences
(Jefferson, 1978; Sacks, 19n, 1
Grammar, viewed as an interactional resource, is also adapted 1.0 struc-
tured sequences of turns thai form bounded activities within conversations,
This can be seen in another traclitional area of grammal' that has heen de-
scribed at both sentence and disconrsc levels, hut that has been further
shown to be tighdy intertwined with interactional practices as well. The
study of alte_rnatiolls between full !lOllnS and pronouns comes LInder the
heading of anaphora, In a variNy of ways, the work of Fox (19Hfi,
has shown that the choice ota full Noun Phrase (NP) or a pronoun
in English conversatioll i.s bound up with the display of the structure of COI1-
versational sequences,
attention to the structure of conversational sequences, Fox's
research provided a more complex picture than one that attends mainly to
issues of continuity of reference, as put fonh by Civon Givon held
that the choice of' anaphoric device was correlated with the distance to the
last mention of that referent, with consideration of intervening referents as
well, In conversational seqnences, Fox (l9H7) f(lUnd that ill choosing a
NP or a pronOllll, a speaker can also be proposing that a seq lIence has ei-
ther ended or is continuing. Thus, in the following example, although a
commOn information managemenl-based explanation would predict that
the referent firsl indexed as "lEllal:''' would, in this continuous environ-
ment, be rdCITcd to with pronoulls, nole the reference at line II:
(II) I M: Well
(any,vay listen) I gotta (go), I gotta(-) do
a lolla
:)

4 M:
Oh and I-Iillary said she'd call me she was
;)
gonna go to the librarv with me
6 (0.9)
7 M:
Bu\.- (0,1) I don't think she will
8 M:
So anyway (0.2) teh. I'm g'onna go have these
xeroxed
9
and I'll ('OIne back ill a little biL
10
1.I R:
(Oka[y. Say]) hi to Hilhuy Ii:)!' me.
12 S:
13M:
Lines I to 7 involve a sequence that is treated as closed by M's So anyway at
line 8, which moves into a new sequence, the closing of (he conversation
(Scheglofl& ScKks, Thus when Ihe person referred to in lines Ito 7
is again referred to al line 11, the reference is part of a new sequence, a c1os-
'I. SOCIAL INTERACTION AND (;R\Mf\lAR
ing sequence, and is done with a full NP, It is the interactional slrnCll!l'ing
that produces an environment in whieh Ihe n'-rd'crencing would Ill' dout'
in this uneconomical form, a discovery that follows onI\' 11'0111 a dose
interactional analysis.
In what might be considered as an opposite strate!:,,)' to thai ill (II), ill
the telephone conversation in (12), asequcllce tlmt has heen dosed is suh-
sequently reopened with the help of a pronoun:
(12) A: Hello
2 B: Is Jessie there)
g
A:
(No) Jessie's over at her g-l'awllla's j()r a coupk da:ys.
4 B: Alright thank 1'011,
:) A: You're wel:come?
6 B:
7 A: Dianne?
R B: Yeah,
9 A: OH I THOOGHT that was YOII,
--l> 10 A: Uh-she's over at (;ramJlla Lizie's for a couple of
II B: Oh okay,
Note that "gramma" is referred to in line :\ aftcr which proLOtvjllCll ('olner
sational closing turns follow (lines 4-6) (Schq!;loll & Sa('ks, I p, 17), II
takes special work by A, at line 7, fl)r the COllversation to reopcll, ,'\. appar-
ently havingjust now recognized to whom she is speaking, lIses a SU!I1I1Hlns.
Dianne?\Vhat follows, in line 10, is a re-referencillg of./I'uie through the \lSI'
of a pronoun, even though the last mentiou of/essie is mallY lint's C,lrlier
and in what was then treated as a dosed sequence. Speakcr A effectively ac-
complishes a continuation of Ihat earlier sequencc with the aid of this anlul
choice of NP form.
Although there is much 10 say abollt the complexities orillicractioual S('-
quences, h.ll now, let us observe t.hat speakers work OIl a lum-hy-rurn hasis
to show each other what sort of sequence they are co-constructing, where it
how it continues, and how they might dose it and mO\T 10 <lllotll<'r
sequence or end the interactioll. Grammatical struclUrcs are prime IT-
sources for working out where olle is st'<Juentially. as illnstralcd in Fox's
work with reference t<lI'nmlatioll,
Grammar and Repair
Fox, Hayashi, and Jasperson explored the ways ill which same-turn
, whose operation is rooted in v<lrious interacLiollal pressures, is
managed in languages wilh vastly diflerent syntactic practic(,s to meet Ihese
pressures. To this end, they discussed ways in which the organizatioll of rc-
130
131 FORD, FOX, THOMPSON
pair differs across two languages, English andJapanese, and argued that
thesedifferences in repairorganization-andpossiblyeven differences in
the mechanismsofturn-taking-correlate, at least in part, with larger dif-
ferences in the syntactic practices employed by speakers ofthese two lan-
guages. Herewepresenttwooftheirtindingsregardingtheditferencesbe-
tweenI'epairorganizationandsyntacticorganizationbetweenJapaneseand
English.Before turningto thedifferencesin repairbetweenJapaneseand
English,a brief sketchofthegrammaticalorganization ofeach languageis
in order.
Syntm; in Conversational japanese
Japanese is often described as anSOY, orverb-final, language (where S
stands ti)I' subject, a for direct object, and V for verb). In conversational
data, many utterances are verb-final:
(13) H: de: tashoo
Illaketoku.
and lllore.or.less discount
"and (we) discount mOl'e orless."
However, certain clementscan occurafter the predicate (e.g., so-called ti-
n'll particles). Moreover,itis commonlyknown thatSand0 areoftennot
expressedin conversationalJapanese (Hinds, 1982; Kuno, 1973; Maynard,
1989; Ono&Thompson, 1997;Tanaka, 1999). Consider thefollowingex-
amples (nouns thatarenotexpressedinJapanesearegiven iII parentheses
in the English translations):
(14)H: hajimete mita kedo.
fOLthe.tirst time saw but
"(1) saw (her) for the tirst time."
In (14) neither the nor the objectis expressed. Even verbs can re-
main unexpressed.
Theresultofthesepatternsis thatclausesinconversationalJapanese
tenshowoneormoreovertnounsthatarenolSor0 butarerathernouns
desCl'ibinglocations, times,andothersettings; thesearethenfollowed bya
verb in some utterances, though notin all; final particles often follow the
verb.Theorderofnonnsthatdooccurinanutteranceis flexible, respond-
ing to the interactional needs ofthe moment ofutterance.
ReferringnounsinJapaneseconversationcan befollowed bycaseparti-
cles, or postpositions, which indicate the role ofthe noun in the clause
(e.g., subject, direct object, locative). These particles function somewhat
like case markingsystems in languages like German and Russian (butsee
Shibatani, 1990,cll. II, fora discussion ofthecomplexityofJapanesecase
4. SOCIAL INTERACTION AND CR;\I\II\IAR
particles, and F10ii & Ono, 2000; Matsuda, IlJ96; Ono, Tholllp,on, & Su-
zuki, 2000;andTanaka, 1991J, fordiscussionsofthe useofcase particles in
Japanese conversation).
Syntax in Conversational English
English is usually described as a rigid SVO langnage. Allhollgil lhere i,
some word ordervariation in our conversational data, in UllCl-
allcesdo tend tobeSV(O),with prepositional phrasescOIning ',till'! the di-
rect object, if one is present. Subjects in English COll\'cTS<llioll ,liT ()H'I-
whcImingly human and pronominal (Dahl, E)97; Scheibm,lIl, :20()1, ill
press).
It is important 10 point out here that English is somewhat odd uoss-
linguisticallyin requiringthepresenceofa slIbject innearlyall ullcranCt'S;
it is rare, even in fast conversation, ii)r speaklTs to produce a lILlill Ci<lllS(,
without explicit mention ofthe
Organization of Repair
WhatFox, Hayashi, andJasperson (1996) fiJlllld is a IHllllbl'lor\V,n's ill
which repairis organizeddifferentlyacross the two languagesill qllestion.
We discuss two ofthese first, ancI then present their argul1lcnt tlIat these
differencesin repairorganization arise, atleastin part,frolll nWI('gennal
syntactic differences exhibiled across the two languages (the findillgs IT-
ported here were first noted in Hayashi, 1994).
Procedures for Delaying Next Noun Due. Thefirst type ofdiflcITlin'in IT-
pair has to do with the general function ofdelaying the produclion ofa
next item due. Fox, Hayashi, andJasperson (I99G) tiJCllsed on dt'la\'s in-
volved in the production oflexical parts ofnoun phrases-in particular.
nouns. Syntacticdifferences between the two languages maybe implicated
in a different set ofrepair procedures for delaying the production 01 a
noun. Considerfirst the following examples from English (ill this discus-
sionofrepair, an asteriskindicates thesile atwhich repairis initiated,and
brackets indicate the "repairable" material):
(15) M: on the back ofhis pickup truck [with a,*] (OA) Wilh <lj;lCk.
(16) B: We're gonna take it [through the*] through the mill so to
speak.
In these examples, the speakers have begun a prepositional plll'asc, initi-
atedrepair,andthenrecycled theprepositionanda possiblearticlebelim'
progressing with the rest ofthe phrase. In each ofthese cases, recycling
constitutes a procedure for delaying the production ofa ncxl it('nl dlle.
132
133 FORD. FOX. THOMPSON
Thisprocedurecould, forexample,bepariofa word a requestfor
management ofoverlapping talk, and/orproduction ofa

Japanesespeakers, it turnsout,donotUS(' ('('cyclingtodelaytheproduc-
tion ofnOllllS. The IT,ISOIl i"or this seems to he thatwhereas prepositions
andarticlesill Englishprecedetheil'nouns, postpositions,snchascasepar-
inJapanesefollow theirnouns. Itis clearthatEnglish speakersmake
lIse ofthefan thatpl'epositionsandarticlesprecedetheirnOUllS; preposi-
tionsandarticlesprovide material to be recycled hd()H' thespeakermust
a nOHn.Japanesespeakers,on theotherhand, do nothave avail-
abletotltem nOll-lexical matetialtorecycle bd()I'ea nOlin,ascase
f()Jlow their nOllns (andJapanese has no articles).
Because ofthe syntactic organizationsofthe two languages, then,
lish sneakerscan ma ke llseofpreposition and article recyclingas partofa
stratq..,ry, whereasJapanese speakers cannot, The data indicate that
Japanesespeakers11lake useofotherpracticesf(lJ' delaying the production
ofa next item due.
Fromthesebetswe cansechowit is possible that thesyntacticpractices
by speakers shape the organization ofthe repairstrategies that
al"(, used. .
The Scope of Recycling. Thesecond type ofditkrclIce in repairalso in-
volves In this case tlie differencesuggests the possibility ofvery
basicdiJferellcesin theturn-takingmechanismsofthetwolanguages.Con-
sider the J()llowiIHT examples ii'om ollrEnglish data:
(17) B: in thisbuilding- ,ve finally got
.hhha roo:111 today in- in
the leh- a lecture hall,
(lH) K: Plusonce Ihegot- sOll1e*) Iml (1.3) Itegotsomebattery
acid on: (0.2) on his trunk 01' somethillg.
In (l7).repairis initiatedaftera nounphrase (definedasa noun plusallY
modifierthatmight occur) h<18 beenstarted.In recycling, thespeakeronly
repeatsthepartofthe llOUlt phrasethat hasheenproducedsobr-thein-
definite article. Thespeakc;]"doesnotrecycle "back to"anythingeadiefill
the utterance. In Example (18), thespeakeralso initiates repairafterstart-
ing a nOlln phrase; in this case, the speaker the whole
clanse (excludingPlllS IIrne) l'ather thanjust the parI ofthe llOllll phrase
producedso {ilL
Onewayof statingthepatt.erIl in English is tosay thatthedomainofre-
cycling can eitherbe the constituentunderconstrllction at the time
repairis initiated (e.g., nOllll phrase),orit call be theclanse. Thispattern
holds {()r all constituents, including verbs and
4. SOCIAL INH:RACTION AND (;R;\\1MAR
Incomparison tothispattel'n, theJapanesedatashowonlyC<lllstitlll'llt-
internal recycling; that is, atleastin these data,Japanese do nol
make use ofclausal recycling, Thismeans that it" a speakerinitiates repair
afterstartinga nounphrase,heorshewill recyclehacktothe 01
thatnounphrasebutnotfurtherhack;repairinitiateddurinf{theC()Bstruc-
tionoftheverh usuallyis handledhy recycling .insttheverh, 1101 otllerek-
mentsthatmighthave precededtheverb(exceptillonecase thedirect oh-
jectofthe verb, which makes a local constituent-averh nhrasc \. So Olll'
doesnotfind cOllllterpartsin theJapanesedatato
give examples ofrecycling inJapanese:
(19) M: tteyuuka koko denwa [kaket-*J kakcte kite sa.
Lmean here telephone ca- call come FP
"I mean, (they) ca- called us here,"
(20) T: .. mukoo no [sutahlm-*J slltahhll tnO sa: VllllShlill.
the.other.party GEN staff stan also FP excellent
". ,. their staffis also excellent.."
domaius01
recycling hetween the two lang-uages. The reason for this
dillcrcllce, it
seems, lie!; in thedifferentsyntactic practicesemploycd ill
local
interactional needs.
Thesyntactic practicesthatseemtobeattheheartofthis clill(Tcl1ce in
repairare thefollowing-. As mentionedearlier,all referringHOWlS ill
nesecanhemarkedforcase,andtheorderornOllllS beforetlienThis flexi-
ble. Inaddit.iol!, andobjectsinJapanese,particularlysubi('(fs, are
often notexplicitly realized (asseenin (14).Theverb in
at or near the end ofthe clause.
The kind of turn structure these lead to typically, althollgh of
course not always, starts with some kind ofdisC()llrse marker !c.g.. II i/O.
nrtn.k.a), followed byadverhials, ornonnseithernot lllarkecltoshowanyIT-
lationshipwithotherpartsoftheclauseorindicatingsetting01SOIlIC killd,
followed by theverb, and possihly followed by so-called tillal partides. So
what occurs early in the turn-Collstrllctiollal unit (or "Tel'''; see Sacks,
ScheglofT, & Jefferson, 1974) is often only loose\v associatcd structurally
with whatis tof()llow. ConversationallltterancesillJapanesetitliS seemnot
toshowt.ightsyntacticorganization (forsimilarfindingsandJmt!tcrdiscus-
sionoftheirimplications,seeHayashi,2000; Iwasaki, Iwasaki & Tao,
19B3; Tanaka, 1999).
English, on the other hand, rcqllires the presence or oycr\. subject
and is fairly rigidly SV(O). This leads t.o tllms that lIlay begin with a dis-
coursemarker (e.g., widl, so) andthencontinuewilh asubject, thell a verb,
and thena directobiect,orprepositionalphrase,oradverhial, ifthese arc
We thusseemto havea systematicclii1erellce ill the
135
,
134
FORD, FOX, TIIOMPSON
appropriate.COllversaliollalutterancesin English thuscouldbesaid toex-
hibit a higherdegree ofsyntactic coherence.
Fromasyntacticperspectiv{', then,wecansaythatin English thesubject
begins a tightly knit clausestructureand hencesyntactically is the "begin-
ning"oftheclause,whereasinJapanesethereis noconsistentelementthat
serves as the beginningofa tightly kr)il syntactic unit-infitet, thereis no
such tightly knit unit. InJapanese, clemClIts in an utterance seem to be
moreindependentfromoneanotherthanareelementsinanEnglish utter-
ance;we believe thatthedifferencein theorganization ofrecyclingacross
the two lang'uages reflects this difference.
Fox, Hayashi, andJasperson (1996) suggested that thesesyntactic facts
affect repair because theyaffecta crucial aspectofthe fum-taking mecha-
nismsofthese two languages, namelyprojection. Thatis, theyargued that
thebeginningsof TCtJsinJapanesedonottendtohaveelementsthatsyn-
tactically tht'possibleorganizationof whatis tofollow. Forexample,
ti'omthepresenceof anadverbialora location-indicating1101ln,a recipient
cannotnecessarilypredinwhatkindofsyntacticdelllentwill comenext.It
seems, however, that thebeginningsofTCUsinEnglishdo possible
organizationsforwhat is tot()\Iow; t()rexample,oftell inEnglishassoonas
one hears thesubject, oneknows (in a practical sense) thata verbis com-
ing;andassoonasonehearstheverb,oneknows what is likely tocorne
tel' theverb. Thatis, the beginningofthe clausein English is rich with in-
formationabouthowtheclallse is likely tocontinue.Thebeginningofthe
danse in English projects its likely continuation.
SoFox,Hayashi,anrlJasperson (1996) arguedthatEnglishspeakersand
recipit'nts able to use an "earlyprojection"strategybecanseofthesyn-
tacticpracticestheyemploy. Japanesespeakersandrecipients,011 theother
hand,engageinsYlitacticpracticesthatdonotmakeeasy"carlypmjection"
strategies; from theirdata, they suggested that itis possible thatJapanese
speakersmake use of"waitandsee"slrategies thatare enabled by thesyn-
tactic practicesavailable to thelll.Atany rate, theysuggested thatsyntactic
projection can take place earlierin an utterance in English than inJapa-
nese. neithersetof strategiesis inanyway betterthan theother;
they simply provide diflercnt resources /()r accomplishing transition to a
next speaker.
We haveseenso thatthebeginningofa TeU carrieswithitdiffel"ent
interactional possibilities in English than inJapanese.In fact, it is possible
thatTeUbeginning,or"turn beginning," is nolaninteractional objectin
Japanescthewayitis in English.Thisfactsuggestsa possiblemotivation[()T'
Englishspeakas'return to thesubjectinsomecasesofrecycling,whereas
Japanese speakers stay within local constituents{I)r recycling: In English,
the beginningoftheclauseis a coherentsyntacticandinteractionalobject
fiTlIlI which a re-projection for the entire clause can be made, whereas in
4. SOCIAL INTFRACTION AND GRA.MMAR
Japanese the beginningoftile clause may notbesyntactically knil 10 whal
follows in the clause, and would nol be lhe site ofre-pn:jectioll. III Japa-
nese, projection may be done much more bit-by-bit than it typically is in
andtheorganizationofrecyclingreflects this t1lCt. Thesehvpothe-
ses have been supported by further research (see, e.g., Havashi, 2000;
Tanaka, 1999).
Sofarwe haveconsideredsomeoftheactivitiesspeakersengagein,and
tbe bearing they have on the timing and grammatical shape ofthe tums
theytake.Inadditiontotheimplicationsofturn-organizatioll{ill' I heshape
ofgrammar,we canpointtootherareasof grammarwhere tht,activitit'sin
which coparticipanlsareengagedplayarole in theway gralllillatical regu-
laritit'S emerge. In the following sections we examine some of thl's(', and
conclude with suggestions offurther areas in which similar discoveries
be made.
GrammarandAssessments
Research has revealed a majoractivity that adjectivesale usedforill inf()r-
malconversation,namelyofferingassessments, wherebycoparlicipalltsinter-
actively evaillate persolls and situations (Goodwill, 19HO: &:
Goodwin,1987, 1992a,1992b; Pomerantz, 19<-14; Strauss& Kawallishi, 1
Uhmann, 1996).
Grammatically, itturnsoutthattheprimaryway assessmelltsaredoneis
with Here is an examplefrom ollrconversational data (adjec-
tives bolded):
(21) K: it's incredible how they live.
C: it IS in{'Tedible.
LinguislsgenerallyaccepttheideathaImanylanguagescall1)(' shoWII to
havea categoryof"a(tjective." English is oneslIch language, where we call
find distribut.ional evidenceofan"adjective"category thatis distinctfrom
otherlexicalcategoriessuchas "noun,""verb," and"adverb" (Ferris, I
QuirketaI., Mostlinguistsagret'with Quirkel al..whoan!lled thaI
:LAs theexamplesdist.:llssed in lhis research fnakc deal', llsing predicalin' is 110\
theouly,vay in which asscsslnenlsare done: olht'1' forms, sHch as th(' usc or ('x-
pressiolls lik.e IfiRr, intensifiersslIch as!Ptl1Iv, alld prosodycall a1,o he used 10 ('>!!\',.\ cYalt",
lions.Avaluahlestudywouldconsidertheactivily-roordiul1lingroieof'varioHsrCnIlT("lH g:raUl-
rnaticalschC'lnas;in theabsenceof sucha stlldywe(,(lnlctltourselvesherewilh111l" ()I)scrvatiHl
thaia highproporlionoflheas,;csslllCIlIs(,llellCeSill o\lrdalaamidescribedill lilelilcrall!I'c
involve predicativc adjectives.
fnauylangu,,'gescannothesoeasi1yargued10 havea cIa,s.of forrl'ic-
vant discussion, see Cmf!, 19()(; Dixon, 1977; Schaner, 191-\'1; Thompson. I!lHR and Welzer.
1996.
136
FORD, FOX, THOMPSON
membershipill thecategory"adjectiw"should beconsidered to begr'adi-
ent.
The use ofadjectives has traditionally been described for English in
termsofa broaddistinction between"predicative"and"attributive"llses. A
"predicative"useisanacljectivein theroleofthepredicateofaclause,asin
(21) and (22), all taken from our database:
(22) Ihey weren't that good
they're really expensive
it's wrenching
An"attributive"useisanadjectiveintheroleof a modifierof a nounwithin
the SaillC Noun Phrase (NP), as in:
I would go to an Italian opera
it's a nice place to doze
it's a very bleak stOI,
that's a big hunk offish
These traditional distinctionscomc alive whcll we considerhowadjectives
are manifested in evel,day English conwrsation. Two intcresting recent

discover'ies are relevant.
I
First,Englebretson (1997) hasshownthatthedistinctionbetweenpredi-
cative andattributive adjectives is strikingly related to the type ofinterac-
tion thatparticipantsareengagedin. ForinformalconversationalEnglish,
where much background, and especially knowledge of the referents, is
shared,thepredicativeuseof aqjeclivesis muchmorefrequentthantheat-
tributive lise. Formoreformal situationsandfor tellingstories, where less
backgroundandlessknowledgeofreferentsis shared,attributiveadjectives
tend to be more frequent.
Wecan relate this finding to theargumentthatthese two usesofadjec-
tives, and their concomitant structural schemas, serve the participants in
ver, different ways. Thompson (1988) argued that attributive adjectives
playamajorrolein thewayspeakersintroducenewreferentsintothecon-
versation,whereaspredicativeadjectivesevaluateorcommentona referent
that is already shar'ed kllowledge between lhe participants, To
considerExample (24), as analyzed in Englebretson (1997):
(24) (h)h h he had on a white SUil, LiLa had on a um,
a black suit, and then he stand there and tells her how it's
not (,) it needs to be baggier here, and they're analyz- -
they are so superficial,
n7
4. SOCIAl. INTERACTION AND
Herewe callseeI heliseoftheatlributiveadjcctivesmhite andIJIr/(Ji to'mlm-
ducethereferentsofthetwosuitsintothecOllversation.Theil thepredicI-
tive aqjective is usedtoevaluateorcommentonthcjllst-iutro(\ucc(\
referentofsu.it, and the prcdicativeacljectivc slI/m/trial is used to (:"alu;11e
thereferentofthey, whichrefersto"he"andLiza, thepeopleintroduccdat
the beginningofthe excerpt.
In otherwords, the predicative adjectives are involved ill assc,s-
ments,whereasbyandlargetheattributiveadjectivesarenot,Thatis, ! here
seemstobearelativelvdear11l11ctionaldistinctionbetweenattrihulivelISCS
and predicative uses of What we have, then, "
identified distinction between attributive and prcdicaliv(' adjectiv('s ('orn'-
lating 10 a significant degree with a distinctioll hclwct.'11 l\\() I,(,ClUTCIl!
interactional activities, thatof referentsi()r furtherdisn!ssioll
and thatofassessingalready-introducedrekrellis.Thesecorrebtiollspro-
vide a compelling case for Ollr argument that certain rccnrn'llt killds 01
interactionalactivities precipital.ecertain recurrentkindsofgralilmar.and
thatimportantcues toall understandingofwhatgrammaris (all he10011<1
ill considerin!! Itow grammar works in cverydavsocial inler'Ktiolls.
GrammarandtheInteractionalNegotiationofReferent..
III reieningtopeopleorobjects,peopleoftcnlinc!ituscfllliodwck,or{OIl-
finn, thatthelistener(s) arethinkingofthesalllc ref(:rentbet{m' the\'go01]
togivea predicateassociatedwith it.\.vccanthinkofthisactivity<IS
inga referent. Herearesomeconversationalexampks,Wilh thereferclll Ill'
ingproposedinboldfaceandthelatermentionsofthatreli:rcnt llllcierlillcd:
(25) A: now um, the last paragraph-
B: yes
A: umIseemtorememberi!,being 1'1'0111 \\hat's
and so myredsweater, I haven't seen it since ( gol it.
(27) A: and this la:dy, (.) nobody knows yet
and most ofus think, sh.!:, probably hlinled.
(. )
hiltshe fell,
(28) A: this partyI went toFridaynight, whereJane wasjallIllling
on that harmonica? thatwas absolute- - well lirst ofa/l,
it's paddlers.
and this guy, he went, (.) and he knew
138
FORD, FOX, TIIOMPSON
an:d you know knew what was gOlllg 011,
and he worked arOllnd there ill the yard,
It turnsout that thegrammaticalconsequencesofllegotiatingreferents
inEnglisharequitesystematic-andquitesocial.Assuggestedby thebold-
andullderliningintheseexamples,we calldescrihe thegmmmarof
thisactivity ill termsofa schemaill which thereferentis introducedwitha
charact(Tistic prosody, followed bya pallse, and tlien thesame referentis
referred tobya pronounas one: orlllorepredicate;;arc littered,As;;everal
researchers have pointed out (Ashhy, 1988; Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 198fi;
Geluykens, 1992; Oehs, 1 Ochs& Schieffelin, 1983; Tao, 1992, 1996),
thisgrammaticalschemacan beseento Iw highlyinteractional.Gdllykens
(1992, ch,2) showcd thatthesereferent-negotiatingturnsarebuiltinsuch
away thatarttTlhementionoflhe referent, theretenostobea noticeable
slowingandpausingso that,ifthelistenerhasanyreaction,verbalorother-
wise, there will be room for it, as shown in the /i)lJowing schema:
sdwma
A: NT' + pause
R: (acknowledgement of,NP)
A: clause witb NP as participant
According to his analysis, most (81 ofthe I-cfercllt-negotiating interac-
tionsin hisdatahaseareofthis 1<)1111, witheithera pause (52%),asill (26)
through (29),ora panseplusall actual turn in thesecondposition,
as ill (2!'i),I
vVe thusset' that thedesign ofa veryn.'cognizablegrammaticalschema,
referred10 as "left-dislocation"ill grammaticalstudies,iscloselycorrelated
with the interactionalfunction ithasemergedtoserve. Oneveryuseful re-
sourcethatspeakersofEnglish have accesstois whatwe canthinkof as the
referent-negotiating schema, where a referent is mentioned with a short
pause, allowing the addressee to intervene ifthere is trouble identilying
thatrefert'nt,andtltcnacla\lsefollowswitha prortoullreferringtothat
erentaud a predicate abmtl that referent.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we hope to have suggested some ofthe benefits ofap-
proachinggrammarfrom an interactional pointofview. We haveshown
thatperhapstheprirnmybenditis thatwe eOllle toa dearerunderstand-
<lIn fan, although we do not pur'tlt' this here, (;clnykclls show('(l that the "ppan'lll
counterexamples aho prnvid{' Sllpport lor this analYSis,
'I. SOCIAl. INTERACTION c\i'\1) (;RA:vIMAR
139
of justwhat grammar is all abollt. Tlw illteractiollal data support a
viewof grammarasasetof complexrOlltiucs,hatl'lIwrgeas flcoplcdevise
recurrentways ofresolvingcOmmlllliGlt.ive prohlems.TIte hasic I1llt,
and boltsofgrammar, sllch as c1allses, prouollns, verb forms, and
ofspeech"likeadjectives, can heseen tolit intoa pictllreof gr<Lllllll<Lr;t'
an adaptive resource in which the most. lISCflll routines s<'lencd <lnd
strengthened by daily llse,
Anotherbenefitofthisappmachis thaI it keepsLIS realislic ill ourdailll'
ahoutwhatgrammaris, Theinteractional datalllake itclear tltat gr<llllLllar
is partofa largerset ofconcernsin hUlll,lll COllllllllllicatioll,COlln'rllS thaI
include bodyposition, eyegaze, headandann 1ll0VCllH'l1ts, ,IS 1\'('11 as reb-
t.ionships andsocial organization. Clausesare related to the lllallagnllclll
ofturnsintalking,whichisfurtherrelatedtolheclllergcl1ccofcomplex()I
ganizations in groups ofpeople, To be adapli\l' to ('\'(T-C!t,1I1\!.inl.!: s{)rj,ti
needs, grammar- has to be flexible, probabilistic, and more I(
tured than has been assumed,
Our experience is that a social approacll to granUl1;Jl' P;l\,S orr halld-
ill newdiscoveriesaboutwhat gramlllarmust he1IlHit'l'Slood to he,
Everyaspect of grammarcanheprofitablys('e11 i11 [ermsor\d 1<11 1)('()J)1c ,11('
doing when thev talk,
APPENDIX
period indicates final intonation
comma indicates continuingintonation
question mark indicates rising intonation
sh- hyphen indicates a cut-olfsound
a timed pause
(anyway) parentheses indicate uncertain
,'-'
to th(! l)u Bois, ,'>r'IIIUJfZI'-(
\.:.-' jl.jCJ.) \,S/1'I11 )
@
laug'hter
[]
overlapping speech
length
to the Sacks et at.. 1974
length
she stressed syllable
SHE
greater volume liMn surrollnding talk
,. :'
,
J
140
i
I.
(.) ;, short bealorsilence
(h) hrealhincss in a word
hh exhalalion
.hh inhalation
REFERENCES
FORD, FOX. THOMPSON

Ashbv. W. (191'11'1). Tht'syntax, prag-mati",allds(lciolingnisticsofleft- andright-dislocatiollsin
FrenclL 76,
.\1\<:1', r. (1992). The'1('\erendings",lIellce: Rightw.. ,.. I('xpa",ioJJ in spokcn I;llIgllaf(t'. In M.
K011lra & T. ,";iratli (Eds.), Sl1lrlie.' ill sjlOhrll l'IIII!.1/IIW.l: l'-figli.I", Cnmflll. hnno,lIgri{ (pI"
4I-'i'l). Budapest: Linguistics Institute, Hungarian Academy ofScicnt'<'S.
Aner, r. (19'16). Onlhep'T"o"kandsyntaxof!Urn-continuations.In E. Couper-Knhlen& M.
Selting (Eds.). I'mll"I" ill IIHHif'rSlllio/l (pp. 57-1(0). Cambridge: Camhridge LIniversity
Press.
Bihel,D. (19l'iH). fI(/'(lSS VIFI'rh IIlId""ilil1l':Cmnbridg-c':(:alllbridgeUniversityPress,
l\ybee,J (19H:;). Mott,lw[o,!.,"' AmsttTdalll:,Iohn Benjamins.
Bybee,J (1995). Regulartl1orpholo!-\yandthelexicon. I.IIllgUI/WlindCogniliv!'Pmr('ssrs. 10(5),
425-45r,.
Bybee.J (I()DI:I). The emergent lexicoll. Chimp' Ung'/(/llirSoti,'I)" N.
Byhee,J (200I). PhONology mlfllrlll/fllag1' II\(', Cambridge: Cllllbridge UniversitY' Press.
Bybee,.J. (ill press). McchanislllS of chall!-\(, in gl-,Ullmaticil<ltioll.Themkoffrequenc\'. In R.
Janda & ItJoseph (Eds.), /llI1l1lbooil o/' hisloliml lingllislin. OX/{>r<l:
Bybee,J.,Perkins,R..& Paf(lil1ca,W. 171f'l'1)t)l/,lirl1/ v/'gmllllll(u:' Tf'IISP, 11,/)('('1, 111/d modI/IiI)'
[augullg"\ Ihe worid. Chicago: I'lliversitv ofChicago Pless.
Chafe,W. (I91:\'j). I-Iow peol)]eUsc adverbialcbuses.BPI"wlry 10,.137-.H9.
Chafe, W. (1994). /)i.ll'lil" II', ronsriollsn('ss. find lime. Chicag'O: llniY'ersily ofChicago Press.
Clark. H. I-I. (ID!l()a). Communities. cOlllnUl1laliti('s, and relativity, In.J. GlIIllPCl'l & S. C.
1.('viIlS0l1 (Eds.). IMhill/llngIillglli,I;1' rPialll'ih' (pp. Cllnbridgt': Cambridge Flli-
\,crsity Pns....
Clark, H. l-I. (19')(ib). (:.I;ng Ifilig-lI"g!'. Call1bridg-e: Ca'l1bridg" University Press.
Clark, H. II.. 8.: Wilkes-(;ibbs. fl. (191:16). Rekrringas a collahorative pron",. COi!,'fliliofl, 22,
1-39.
Croft. W. (1991). ,'i,'n/arlie andgrmllmfliimi I'd,,!ioJ(s. Chicago: University ofChk"lgo
Press.
Dahl, 6. (l99i). IOgoulllrinf.\ disWllr.II' flllri A,,;,ilahle from
Dixoll, R. M. W. (l'IliLvVlwre ha\'(' all tlie adjcctives gone? Sludirs in I, 1-1l0.
Dt! Bois,,)., Scl1l1e\,,'-Cobmll, S., Paoliuo, D.. 8.: Cumming, S. (199:1). Olllline ofdisconrst'
transcription. InJ A. Edwards& M. D. Lalltpert (Eds.). 'fit/lling riala: Tmn.lr:liplion (iflil('(It!-
irlg method.ljilr/rll1g-llflg-e rl'sl'(II'(h (Pl" F)-fi()). Itillsdalc,N): LawrenceEriballl1lAssociates.
Edelman, (;, M. (1992). Bright flil; brillif/llt lire: On thl' malter o/Iizl' 111 ill d. New York:
HarperCollills.
EngleiJrt'tsoll, R. (1997).Genreandgral1llnar: PreclicativcandattributiveadjeCliv('s111 'pok(,n
English. Bnkdry l.inguisli(\ SNid)" 2],
Ferris,D,C. (199'\). ThnJl/!aningo/5ynlax:A sludy ill
(.(lndon: I.ollgman.
Fillmor(', C. (1\l1l1 Pragmatics alld the description ofdiscourse.
In r. Cole (Ed.), Rlldiml
pragmatirs (pp. 14:1-1(6). NewYork: Academic Press,
4. SOCIAl. INTERACTION AND CRAMMAR 141
Ford, C. E. (;ramff/ar in illh'Tflrtwn: Arll!('lbial r/rlll'if"i ill Anwri((JII 1":/I,U)I\!t (()II 1'I'i'\({timn.
Call1hridge: C;lInbrirlgc llniw'rsily Press.
Ford,C. E..& Thompson,S.A. (I'lHh).Condit;ollabill elise"'lr,,':;\texl-I"IS"dsilidy 11'<>111 Ell).;
lish. In E. C. Traugott,A. terl\lt'nlcn. .J. S. Reilh. /(,. (.. A. h'rf(lIs(J1l IE,k) ()1I 1!JlIlliIUJllfi/'
(pp. '\53-:172). Cambridge: Cllnbridge liniversity ['nss.
Fox, B. A. (19H6). Local patternsand general princi""" ill cogllitiH' pro,"'''''s'
written and cOllversational English. '/hl, 2",-[)
Fox, B. A. (l!llli). A,71aphom flllri Ihr ,Imrllll' of' "I.,mllile. C:l1l1hridf(": ("lIlIlll ,dC;"
Pre".
Fox,B. A., Hayashi, M.,&.Iaspcrsoll,R. (19\/6).A<To,,-lillguiSlicslwl\'ols\lII,'\'alld ITI'''" I"
E. Ochs. F.. Sd,('!-\Iolf, & S. ,\. Thompson (F.ds.l. 11I!l'lw'lioli (Pl'.
(:arnbridge: C.unbridge Univ('rsity
Fujii,N.,& OliO,T. (2000).Theoc('urrenceand llfll\-(ICClllH'II('(' olth,'.!"",,,,,,,dll(" I oiJi"':
marker (I in conversation. SllIdil's ill 1"l1Ig/(/(gl'. 2/( I),
R. J+om (/is("{)lIrSt" jtro(('Y., togffllllnwtj('a/('f1/1\/rlldiofl: (}J! It/trl/\/I)(U/IOI!
fish. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
(;iv6n, T. (191'10). The hinding hierarchy and the typlllng) orCOllll'l"lIl<'lIh 'illll"" III
Ifuag", :13'\-377.
(;iv611, T. (191l:\). n,pi,.('(II/Iinnily. New York: Acadc'llic Pr('ss.
Goodwin.C. (1979).TheinlenKliv('cOl1stmction of a S('lltC'Il(T
l'sathas (Ed.). 1\t'l'tvrifl\' I(JI1gu(lgr': SllIdil's in r'!llIIlIIlItllwdlllo.1!."
Irvington,
Goodwin, C. (1 HH 1). Couvf-'rs(ltiof/ol organ/ullinn: Intenldinn hl'/wf'I'f/ tlud //((/)'/"'" "\,,,\
York: Arad('mic Press.
(;oodwin, C. (19R'I). Tllrn cOllstntctiol1 and cOIl\'('rsatioll,,1 organi""itll\. III II. Iknill. I
Grossb('rg, B. J. O'Keefe,& E. Wanella (Eds.). IMhillili",!':!'(III/IIIIlIUmlinll' \ '01. 2. ,"
(,lIIpinl'., (PI" HI:I-IO]). Newbury Park. U\: Sage.
Goodwin,(:.,& Goodwin,M. II. Com:lIl'!'Cnl operations
If1
on
live orasscssmeJlls. lI'RI PajJ!'!1 ill I'mgllllllic.',
Goodwin,C., & (;oodwin, M. H. (1992a). i\sse<;SllIl'nts
Goodwin & A. Duranlj (Eds.). Rethillkingfonlel! (pp.
University Press.
Goodwin,G, & (;OO<lWill, M. H. (l992h).Context.activity andp<lrti<'il',llioll. III l' .\,)(" ,'(: \. ti,
LUL;O (Eds.), 1iU' wllft'X1l1ffliwliort of'languag(, (PI" 7i-()\)). "\IIISI(,1'I[;1I": I- ,1111 [knj.ltlli"s
Goodwin, M. H. (IYIlO). ProcessesorItlllillallllonitoringil)ll'lic,lled i11 Ill(' plllcill(li'lI1 III cil'
scription sequences. Swiologimi l'llqllin', 50, :10:1-:1 [7.
Haiman,J (1994). Ritllalilation and th,' dev('1upnwlIloflang"age. III VI. 1',,:;1 illCl (Ed.l. I'"
stJl'cliv(', un gmmmnlim/iwlioll (pp. 3-2H). AlIlSl('rdalll:.loll" lkl1jal11i",.
I!aiman,J (1991:'). 7,lik is clu'llp. Oxford: Ox/{ml Ulli"..-sitv I'r('ss.
Hayashi, M. (1994).A comparative smdl'or in EIlg-lish and
(f+..
InN.AkatslIka(Ed.),Japaliese/Kotm1l [illgllt.ltin (\'01. IV, 1'1'. 7i-9'\).
Hayashi. M. (2000). Pmrtifes ill jointuUrrrlllreronslnu!i(JII in./Il/}{/I/".\I'
senation, Uni,'crsity of Colorado.
Heritage,}C, & Roth,A. L. (1'lf.J'i). Grammarand i"stilllli",,: Quc'li,,"s.llId 'l'l(,'liollillg ill
the broadcast news interview. Rr.II'fll'rh VII (lwlSorialllllnl/I'!i!!/!, :','{( IJ. l-fiO.
Hinds,J (19R2). Elli/,sis in If/pannI'. Carbondale, II., and Edmoul"'l. :\Ibcri'" I illglli,I;' Ik-
sc'arrh, Inc.
Hopper, P.J (191:17). En",rg(,lH grammar. ller/u:/(1' IJllgllisliD Swilty. I" 1:',1}-1:,7.-
Hoppcl',P,J. (191'11'1). Emergcntg'"ttl1mar,lIld theA I',-iori (;r;UlIJttarCOltst!:lill!. In D. Talllll'll
(Ed,). Linguistirs ;11 (()lI/l'xl: COIlIlI'Cling ob.len)fllioll (filii llilri/'nlf))ulilig (PI'. 11/-1:)IJ.
Norwood, NJ: Ahlex.
Iwasaki, S. (199:1). S"bjrrliv;ly in grammar . .\lHSl("nlarn:
142
143
FORO, FOX. THO'V1PSON
Iwasaki, S .. & Tao, H. (19'1'1 . .I,lImary). A CflIII/,omlh". ,Iwtv oflllP slnuiun' of 1/;1' inlonalio/l IInil in
Fllglil/i,jo/,mli''<,', fl.nrI Mour/arnl Chilll'.II'. 1"'1)1' presented al the "lllHlal lIleeting of the Lin-
guistic Sockl\' of America, Los Ang<'les, CA
C, (lQ7:)). A case of precision li'ning in onlinary (oilversatiou: ()n:riapped
positioned address i('nllS in closing sequences. Srmiolira, tJ, "17-96.
Jefferson, G. (I <)7S). SC'IlIellli<l1 aspecls of storytelling in conversatioll. In J. Sd",nkein (Ed.),
SI"dies in till' "'gallioalion olrmll','rsolional illinarlitm (pp. New York: Acadl'1l1ic
Pl'e-ss.
JdTi'rsoll, (;. (19S:I). Notcs Oll SOl))e orderliness of overlap onset. In V. d'Urs" & p, Leonardi
(Eds.), DistlJlII'\(' (II/{flvsis find niltllml rilelori! (pp. 11-38). P"dna: Clenp.
Kllno, S, The slrw/ure 0/ the/ojJal/c.w' I{(I/gllllg'<, Call1hridgt\ MA: MIT Press,
Langacker, R. v\'. (19H7). f<inwrlalions lI/,mgnili11P i."WIWIIII: (f"I. 1. Thtoll'timi/IIPn'flllisilr's, Stan-
",rd, CA: Stan/()rd University Press,
Lerncr, G. H. (1991). On the syntax 01 sentences-in-progress. r"ngllag" ill Sorit'ly. 20CI),
441-4',H.
I.erner. (;. I r. (199{)). Oil lhe "semi-permeable" character of grammatical units in cOI]\'('rs;[-
tion: (:ondiliollal Cnll} illto the turn space of ,lllorlH'r speaker. In E. Ochs. E.. Scheglotf. &
S, ,\. Thompson (Eds.). IIIlnar/ioll flild gfYlIIl1I/IU' (pI" 238-276). Cambridge: Cambridge
l'uivcrsity Press
Matsuda, K. (199G), Fllria/ll(' Ulstmlllhillg of (0) in TO/cYO/II/HIlit'.,,,. Philadelphia: Itlslitlll(' for Re-
search ill Cognitiv(' Science, lillivcrsity of Pennsylvania,
Maynard. S. (19H9)1a/I(IIII'.\(' mm//'/:Illlioll:\i'///OI/Ii'xllialhali,," Ihronglt slrllrillcr IIIU/ illler", lional
",allllgn"ml. Norwood. N.J: Ahle".
Noonan, M. (19H5). Complenwnlation. III T. Shopell (Ed,), Lfll1/fllllgc Iy/,olog\' flllri sX"lmlie df-
snipli,m (Vol. II. Pl'. 4!!-J;1\J). Camhridge: Cambridge ITni\'C!'sitv Press.
Oehs, E. (I9il3). Piaullcd and 11llplannni discollrse, In E. Oehs & B, Schidfelrn (Eds.). At-
'iI/iring /'O/lul'rWllirl1lal {'(Im/,,'II'lic/' (PI', I::!')-Fi;) l.ondon: ROlliledge,
Oel". E., & Schic,f/cliu. B. (1'18:1). Topic as a discomse notion, In E. ()ells & B. Schienelill
(Ed,,), ACljuiring C01I1'"","lioll((1 rmll/Ji'tl'nl'P (pp. I "JS-17'l). London: Routledge.
Ono. T & Thompson, S, ,-\" (I 99i), On dt'conSlrtlCling "lcm anaphoIa." Bnhrlev Lillgllislirs So.
23. 4HI-491.
Ono. '1'., Thompson. S. A., & Sumkr, R. (:(000), The praglllali<: n,lIme of lire s,,-c<tHed sllbject
marker go in Japanese: Evid... rH{' from cOlwcrs"tion. Dismal,\{' Slndirs. 2( I),
Pomerantl, A. (19H4), Agreeing and elis"glTcing' with assesslllents: Some features of pre-
turn shapes, Inl. M, Alkinson &:.J.lierit"lge (E(h.), Slmrlllresolsotial
action (pp, 57-101), Cambridgt': Cambridge University Press,
Quirk, R., Greenbaum. S" I.e('ch, C .. 8,; S\'artvik.,I. (1IIH:,). A
languagt'. IA)ndon: l,onglnal1,
Sack" H. (1972), 0" til<' "nalvahil;l\' or stories by childrt'n. In J. J GlIlIlperz &- D. Hymes
(Eds,). Dire/liollS in sOcio/iIl{!.1Iistit:< (Pi'. Nt'" York: 1I01t, Rinehart & Winston.
Sa,ks. H. (1974). All analvsis of lile course ofajnk.,'s telling in cOllversalion. In R. Ballman &-
Shcrzer (Eds,), [,:"plollttiolls ill 1I1f'l'lhllfl{!;m/ill.V oj.lj){',t/riug (pp. :1:17-'10,3). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge Univ't'l'sily Press.
Sads, II. (I \lH7), On the pn,I,'('clI(;(, le)(' agreement and contiguity ill seqllcllces in COlll'ersa-
tion. III G, BllIlon &,1. R. E. Lee (E(b,). Talk miff sori,,1 ml!,llIl1wlion (pr. 54-69). Philadel-
phia: Multilin,-\,ual "'latter"
Sacks. II., Scheglotr. E .. &.Jelferson, G. ([ ')7,I). A silllpiest sysleLnatics f(Jr the organil,alion or
turll-taking I()r cOLlvcrsatio!l, 1,lIl/gua,!!,e, 50(4), 696-7:\:';,
Schachter, p, (19R:,). syslems. [11 T. Shopen (Ed,), [,flllKllflgl' lY/J%),,)' lind ,Il'nlar-
tit d<".,("/)Iion (Vol. I, pp, 3-(1). Cambridge: C,nubridg<' I Itliversity Press,
4. SOCIAL INTERACTION AND (;RAM'VV\R
Scheglotr, E. (19R7). Recycied j-Llrll beg-inrdngs: :\ n.. III ('Oliver.... ',llioll \;
turn taking organisation. In (;. Hlltton & J R. 1.('(' (Ed",_), F(dl? Ilnd ,\or/a! mgrntiwfloll
70--8fJ), Ckvedon: Multilingllal Matlers.
SchegloJJ', E, (1'19'1). Reflections 011 laLlguagc', de\'ciopmelll, and rill' illll'1a,lio11'" clLIl'af(1'1
of lalk-il1-inler;lLlioll. I!fS{'(J,rrh rJl( [,(IIIf..'1U1j!.1' 1/,//1/ Sou{/I /1111'1(/1:1101/. 2(,( I ). 1:\')-[ :',:1,
Scheglolf. E. (1995). Discourse as all interaclional aci1iCH'lIWI11 III: The ollHlirek\'I1l(T "1,,,-
tion, Rl'.\f(lIl'h on l,anguIIW' fllld Social 1ntl'mrlio)(, 28{3). IS,,-:!1
Scileglolf. E, (1996a). Issllcs of rcleyanct' I'n' discourse allah'sis: COlllillgC'IH Y ill '\(Iioll, illinal'
tion. and co-participant context. In E. 11, 11(1) & D. R. S(olt (Ed",), Cmll/",/olimlfd (I}III.-oj;
vrrmli(J11a/ lii'llJItnt, (Pl" 3-"1:;). NO'w York: SpringeI
Schegloff. E. (19961. Tul'll organi?alion: One direction fcn ill'l'li]':illl" fo.:I<1I II II "LI alld illln,\(-
tion, ILL E. Oehs, E. Schegloff. & S. A, Tholllpson (Eds.). 11I/('I(((lio/l lI"rI glflllllllill
C"mbridge: Cambridge Un;",'!sil), Press.
Schegloff. F" & Sacks. H, Opening up clusings . .';{'il//olim, 8, :.!H!I-:t.'7 (Reprillied in
Haugh & Shernr. Eels" 1')H4, Engkwood CliflS, NI: I'r(,lIlic('-I/"ll)
Scheibman.J ! dunl//J, .. a usage-hased aC('OUIlI "/IIl(' phonologic," ,('dul'!ioll 01,10111
in American English COLl\'c]'s"lioll. IOllmal or Pragma lics. >2. 10:;-1 :.'.1.
Schciblllan,J (2001). Local pallCrtls ofslIbjectivilV ill 1)(",SOIl 'lilt! verb I\pc ill '\IIl('lieall
lish cOLl\C'rsatiol1. InJ Bybec & P. Hopper (Eds.). NI''i'/l'I!I} flTld Ih,' ('IIIOP'IIII' 11/ liogll;,li,
"tntrlllll' (pp. til-1m). Amslerdam: .101m Benjamins,
Scheibtnan,J. (in press). Slr/u'lural /Jaf(pf11S ojsuly'f:'di1r}'/)' ill A1J11TI((UI FU,e;lh1i UI!I1!('iViI!(}}i,
dam: John Benjamins.
Shihatani, M. (1990), 'fill' ll/I/guages 0/1"/,1111. Camhridge: Cambridge l'"i"",il' I'r..".
Strauss, S., & Kc.lIvanishi, Y (19'16). A,SSl'SSnH'lll stralegics inlap,n",se, ];.on',"!. and. \Illni, all
In N, AkalslIka, S. Iwasaki. &- S, Sirauss (Eds.l.JII/I(IIII'",-I\.Olf'fl}( IllIgllill"'1 11'1' 1,1\1-1(1:',),
Slantl)l''', CA: Center f(,l' the Study of Language 'Ill" Inf'll'lllatiOll,
Sweets"r. E. (1990), From If} /ll'flgJl/(flirs: iV/rlalllllll'iml (/IIr! r/lll/(wlll\/U'!l1 0/ \l1II1II11}n,
Cambridge: Call1iJridg'' Universilv Press.
fanaka. H. (1999). Turn-Inking in }a/}(l'flesl' (0f1T. 1r1:wllion: A /11 J(lfunm({/ Ollr! ildnurtifJlI.
sterdalll: John Benjmnins.
Tao. H, NP intonation lInils ,md refert'''1 identificalion. l!edlr'IIl' !jl/gllillin SlItldy. IS.
237-247.
Tao, H, (1996), Units in l\!/aruiarill (OllVf"n'otiou: di";(ollnf' uru/ f.,T'famWOL . \nl'ilcrd;uu: JOIt!l
Benjarnills.
Tao. II. (2001). Oiscovering th" "s"al wilh corpora: The ,/1,,' of If'II/I'IIII)(,I. III K L Siml>'''" Ii,.
J M. (I':ds,), COrjlU1 lingllisliLl ill Il/orlli Aml'r" " (pp, 116-1 +'1), ,\llll ,\Ir,,,,: l :111\ ('\sill
of Michigan Press.
ThoL11pson, S. A, (1987), "Suborelinatioll" and nan alive e\('llI ,llllClLlrl'. In R. Tomliu (Eli.),
Cohermte and grounding ill di\tounl' (p[" 4:,;)-4:'4). Alllslndam: .John HCILjalllill
s.
Thompson, S. A, (19f!il). A disconrs" approach to lire ClOss-linguistic (ategor\' "a<lj('(lil<'."
J. A. Hawkins (Ed,), F:x/;lainiTigloll,i!;lIlI,I!lllnillf'wti, (pI" Hi7-IH'. ()xl,)('(I: l\,LSil Bbrk","'L
Uhmann, S. (1996), On l'hyllnll in everyday GenU,lll C()lll't'r,,,lil>l" Ik"l clash," ill aSSc.,SIll,'lIl
llItcramTS, III E. Couper-KnhleL1 & 1'.1. Selling (Eds.). 1'''>1111'-1 ill 1'001l'I'niliioli (pI" :111:1-:1(,:)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Weber, E. (I'J'J3). Vrtlil'lifS of <j1l1,1i11l1S in Fnglislt f'Illllw","lioli. Amsteni<Il11: .Jol,(\ Ikllj;nni",.
Weber. T. (1997) The emergence of lingniS!ic st1'11<1 ur(': P<lnilloppe,'s "llH'rg(,1l1 gram"",,'
hypothesis revisited. I ,111!{!;ltft[!/ .)rinlt:'" 19(2). 177-196.
Wet?cr, H. (1996). The lyfllllolfY ol atf;ffli7!fJl /"",licalillu. Nl'\,' York: "'loUlon de (;!l1)1eL