Toward a Grammar of Danish Talk-in-Interaction: From Action Formation to Grammatical Description

References

• Allan, R., Holmes, P., & Lundskær-Nielsen, T. (2000). Danish: An essential grammar. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Anward, J. (2015). Doing language. Department of Culture and Communication, Linköping University.
   Google Scholar
• Anward, J., & Nordberg, B. (2005). Indledning [Introduction]. In J. Anward & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Samtal och grammatik: Studier i svenskt samtalsspråk [Conversation and grammar: Studies in Swedish conversational language] (pp. 5–9). Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• 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
• Becker-Christensen, C. (2010). Dansk syntaks: Indføring i dansk sætningsgrammatik og sætningsanalyse [Danish syntax: Introduction to Danish sentence grammar and sentence analysis]. Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (1992–2022). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Visited May 16, 2023, http://praat.org/
   Google Scholar
• Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., & Bickel, B. (2015). The Leipzig Glossing Rules. Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morphemeglosses. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Department of Linguistics. Retrieved May 16, 2023, http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes, 49(3/4), 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). ‘Incrementing’ in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513–552. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DanTIN. (2023). Samtalegrammatik.dk. https://samtalegrammatik.dk/
   Google Scholar
• Diderichsen, P. (1946). Elementær Dansk Grammatik [Elementary Danish Grammar] (1st ed.). Gyldendal.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., & Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question–response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2615–2619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, C., Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (2013). Units and/or action trajectories? The language of grammatical categories and the language of social action. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – Units of action (pp. 13–56). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 14–38). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, B. A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T. (2017). Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics, 3(1), 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0003
   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. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996522.ch10
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Grønnum, N., & Tøndering, J. (2007). Question intonation in non-scripted Danish dialogues. In J. Trouvain & W. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1229–1232). University of Saarbrücken.
   Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Finnish Literature Society. version (2008). http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, E., & Heltoft, L. (2011). Grammatik over det Danske Sprog, I-III [Grammar of the Danish Language (Vol. 1–3)]. Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T. (2005). Where grammar and interaction meet: The preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 375–402). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T. (2006). ‘Will you or can’t you?’ Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1081–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T. (2010). The question–response system of Danish. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2703–2725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T. (2015). Negation in interaction in Danish conversation. Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik, 2(12). https://samtalegrammatik.dk/fileadmin/samtalegrammatik/sos/2/Heinemann_2015_Negation_in_interaction_in_Danish_conversation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T., & Steensig, J. (2017). Three imperative action formats in Danish talk-in-interaction. In L. Raevaara, M.-L. Sorjonen, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 139–173). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Holmberg, A., & Rijkhoff, J. (1998). Word order in the Germanic languages. In A. Siewierska (Ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe (pp. 75–104). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, H. G., & Skyum-Nielsen, P. (2007). Dansk sprog: En grundbog [Danish language: A primer] (2nd ed.). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1990). List-construction as a task and a resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence (pp. 63–92). University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, M. (2021). Er har du det et reelt spørgsmål – og hvilken forskel gør ‘det’? En interaktionel analyse. [Is har du det a real question and what difference does ‘that’ make? An interactional analysis]. In And what difference does ‘that’ make? An interactional analysis]. In Y. Goldshtein, I. S. Hansen, & T. T. Hougaard (Eds.), 18. møde om udforskningen af dansk sprog (pp. 337–358). Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, M. (2023). Managing knowledge discrepancy and accountability issues with proform-questions in Danish [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, S. (2010). Multimodalitet i listproduktion [Multi [Multimodality in list in listproduction]. In C. Lindholm & J. Lindström (Eds.), Finskugriska och nordiska avdelningen vid Helsingfors universitet Språk och interaktion 2 (pp. 141–170). http://hdl.handle.net/10138/28555
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laury, R., Ono, T., & Suzuki, R. (2019). Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction. Studies in Language, 43(2), 364–401. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17032.lau
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1994). Responsive list construction: A conversational resource for accomplishing multifaceted social action. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94131002
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (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
• Levinson, S. C. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 101–130). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lindström, J. (2008). Tur och ordning [Turn and order]. Nordstedts akademiska förlag.
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins, and transformations. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2006). En dialogisk grammatik? [A dialogical grammar?]. In J. Anward & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Samtal och grammatik [Conversation and grammar] (pp. 231–328). Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, J., & Keevallik, L. (Eds.). (2020). Emergent syntax for conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mikkelsen, N. (2023). List construction and participation in Danish talk-in-interaction [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014a). Pointing, talk, and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance: Essays in honor of Adam Kendon (pp. 95–124). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2019). Transcribing silent actions: A multimodal approach of sequence organization. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v2i1.113150
   Google Scholar
• Nordentoft, A. M. (1970). Hovedtræk af dansk grammatik, I–II [Main characteristics of Danish grammar (Vol. 1–2)]. Gyldendal.
   Google Scholar
• Norén, N. 2010. Samtalsspråkets grammatik. Retrieved May 16, 2023, http://www.ofti.se/gris/summary.html
   Google Scholar
• Pekarek Doehler, S., Keevallik, L., & Li, X. (Eds.). (2022). The grammar-body interface in social interaction. Frontiers Media SA.
   Google Scholar
• Puggaard, R. (2019). Flexibility of frequent clause openers in talk-in-interaction: Det ‘it, that’ and så ‘then’ in the prefield in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 42(3), 291–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586519000088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, G. (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and mi X? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes, 49(5), 426–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, G. (2020). Other-repetition in conversation across languages: Bringing prosody into pragmatic typology. Language in Society, 49(4), 495–520. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their Interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Irvington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Ayala, I. (2003). Constructions as resources for interaction: Lists in English and Spanish conversation. Discourse Studies, 5(3), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030053003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–286). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 28–52). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
   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), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.06sel
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (2004). Listen: Sequenzielle und prosodische Struktur einer kommunikativen Praktik – Eine Untersuchung im Rahmen der Interaktionalen Linguistik [Lists: The sequential and prosodic structure of a communicative practice – An investigation within the framework of interactional linguistics]. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 23(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.23.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 483–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2012). 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.). (2012). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, S. S. (2021). Affiliating in second position: Response tokens with rising pitch in Danish. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steensig, J. (2001). Sprog i virkeligheden. Bidrag til en interaktional lingvistik [Language in reality. Contributions to an interactional linguistics]. Aarhus University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steensig, J. (2011). Turn-taking in conversation. In G. Andersen & K. Eijmer (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Vol. 5: Pragmatics of society (pp. 499–532). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Steensig, J. (2023). Syntax in requests for immediate action in Danish talk-in-interaction [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Steensig, J., & Heinemann, T. (2014). The social and moral work of modal constructions in granting remote requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 145–170). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Steensig, J., & Sørensen, S. S. (2019). Danish dialogue particles in an interactional perspective. Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.7146/sss.v10i1.114671
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2020). English why don’t you X as a formulaic expression. In R. Laury & T. Ono (Eds.), Fixed expressions: Building language structure and social action (pp. 99–131). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar