Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Projection in Overlapping Agreements to Assertions: Stance-Taking as a Resource for Projection

References

• Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
   Google Scholar
• Auer, P. (2009). Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 180–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728934
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auer, P. (2014). The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. InLiSt, 54, 1–25. http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/54/inlist54.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bögels, S., & Levinson, S. C. (2017). The brain behind the response: Insights into turn-taking in conversation from neuroimaging. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A. (2000). Concessive patterns in conversation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 381–410). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. (2013). Turn‐design at turn‐beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn‐construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Endo, T., Vatanen, A., & Yokomori, D. (2018). Agreeing in Overlap: A Comparison of Response Practices and Resources for Projection in Finnish, Japanese and Mandarin Talk-in-Interaction. The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 21(1), 160–174
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C. (2000). The treatment of contrasts in interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 283–311). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C. (2004). Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, C., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.07for
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gisladottir, R. S., Chwilla, D. J., Levinson, S. C., & Filik, R. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS One, 10(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.-H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.-H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–189). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A. (1976/2001). Liitepartikkelin -han/-hän syntaksia ja pragmatiikkaa [Syntax and pragmatics of the clitic particle -han/-hän]. In L. Laitinen, P. Nuolijärvi, M.-L. Sorjonen, & M. Vilkuna (Eds.), Lukemisto: Kirjoituksia kolmelta vuosikymmeneltä (pp. 44–90). SKS. (Original work published 1976.).
   Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2009). Designing utterances for action: Verb repeat responses to assessments. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp. 124–151). SKS.
   Google Scholar
• Hayashi, M. (2003). Joint utterance construction in Japanese conversation. John Benjamins.
   Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi, M. (2005). Joint turn construction through language and the body: Notes on embodiment in conjoined participation in situated activities. Semiotica, 156(1/4), 21–53. doi:10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helasvuo, M.-L. (2001). Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Helasvuo, M.-L. (2004). Shared syntax: The grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1315–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwasaki, S., [Shoichi]. (2002). Japanese. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Iwasaki, S., [Shimako]. (2009). Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1983). Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation: Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. Tilburg University.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004a). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 43–59). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004b). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.02nar
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 225–256). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G., & Takagi, T. (1999). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00051-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, X. (2014). Multimodality, interaction and turn-taking in Mandarin conversation. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (this issue). How early can embodied responses be? Issues in time and sequentiality. Discourse Processes.
   Google Scholar
• Niemelä, M. (2011). Resonance in storytelling: Verbal, prosodic and embodied practices of stance taking. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B Humaniora 95. Oulu University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ono, T., & Thompson, S. A. (2017). Negative scope, temporality, fixedness, and right- and left-branching: Implications for typology and cognitive processing. Studies in Language, 41(3), 543–576. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.01ono
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekarek Doehler, S. (this issue). Word order affects response latency: Action projection and the timing of responses to question-word questions. Discourse Processes.
   Google Scholar
• Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2015). Time and emergence in grammar: Left-dislocation, right-dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raevaara, L. (1993). Kysyminen toimintana. Kysymys–vastaus-vieruspareista arkikeskustelussa [Asking as an action. On question-answer adjacency pairs in everyday conversation] [Licentiate thesis]. University of Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Baumann & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, Vol. II. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 41–70). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (2006). In other words: Variation in reference and narrative. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, A., & Deppermann, A. (this issue). Micro-sequential coordination in early bodily responses. Discourse Processes.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (1996). On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics, 6(3), 357–388. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (2017). The display and management of affectivity in climaxes of amusing stories. Journal of Pragmatics, 111, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001a). Responding in conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001b). Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 405–431). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn-projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tao, H. (1996). Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Vatanen, A. (2014). Responding in overlap. Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation. Doctoral dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-0280-5
   Google Scholar
• Vatanen, A. (2018). Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.10801080 51/08351813.2018 doi:10.1080/08351813.2018.1413894
   Google Scholar
• Vilkuna, M. (1989). Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. SKS.
   Google Scholar
• VISK = Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I. (Eds.). (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. SKS.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, W., & Yao, J. (2009). Hanyu rencheng daici lei huayu biaoji xitong de zhuguanxing chayi [Subjective differences of Chinese personal pronoun discourse markers]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Language Learning], 3, 3–11.
   Google Scholar