Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Construction Grammar
- Part IThe Constructional View of Language
- Part IIMethodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
- Part IIICase Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
- 10Different Constructional Approaches in Practice
- 11Syntactic Innovation and Functional Amalgams
- 12Constructions in Spoken Interaction
- Part IVMultimodality and Construction Grammar
- Part VConstructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
- Part VIConstructional Applications
- Index of Terms
- Index of Languages
- Index of Constructions
- References
12 - Constructions in Spoken Interaction
from Part III - Case Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2025
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Construction Grammar
- Part IThe Constructional View of Language
- Part IIMethodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
- Part IIICase Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
- 10Different Constructional Approaches in Practice
- 11Syntactic Innovation and Functional Amalgams
- 12Constructions in Spoken Interaction
- Part IVMultimodality and Construction Grammar
- Part VConstructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
- Part VIConstructional Applications
- Index of Terms
- Index of Languages
- Index of Constructions
- References
Summary
This chapter reviews ways of analyzing interactional and grammatical regularities of spoken, dialogically organized language in a constructional framework. The basic tenet is that grammatical constructions, when used in talk-in-interaction, are housed in interactional sequences, and it is the constructions’ positions in certain sequential locations that motivates their use and shapes their form. Therefore, aspects of sequence and discourse organization are potentially distinctive features of constructions, and reflections of the interactional contingencies that generate them. Four types of construction are examined: receipt questions, second assessments, a construction of meaning negotiation, and pseudo-clefts. All these patterns can be said to be responsive in one way or another, thus lending themselves well to a dialogically sensitive analysis. The analytic examples highlight the necessity of abstracted interactional information for a fuller understanding of the workings of grammatical constructions in talk-in-interaction and for how an interactional perspective can enrich constructional approaches to analyzing linguistic structure.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 309 - 334Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, P. & Lindström, J. (2016). Left/right asymmetries and the grammar of pre- vs. postpositioning in German and Swedish talk-in-interaction. Language Sciences, 56, 68–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & Lindström, J. (2021). On agency and affiliation in second assessments: German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction. In Lindström, J., Laury, R., Peräkylä, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in Language and Social Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. (2005). A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: Concessive repair. In Hakulinen, A. & Selting, M., eds., Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ruiter, J., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S., eds. (2015). Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Schmidt, A. (2021). How shared meanings and uses emerge over an interactional history: Wabi Sabi in a series of theatre rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 139–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2011). Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. & Sansiñena, M. S., eds. (2021). Constructional approach(es) to discourse-level phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances. Constructions and Frames, special issue, 13(1).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. & Nikiforidou, K., eds. (2015). On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames, special issue, 7(2).Google Scholar
Ford, C. & Thompson, S. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2006). ‘Was ihn treib, war vor allem Wanderlust’. Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In Günthner, S. & Imo, W., eds., Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. & Imo, W., eds. (2006). Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, M.-L., Endo, T., & Kärkkäinen, E. (2017). Units in responsive turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, C., Fox, B., & Thompson, S., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, P. & Pfänder, S., eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (2008). Projectability and clause combining. In Laury, R., ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 99–123.CrossRefGoogle 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 ‘det’ make? An interactional analysis]. In Goldshtein, Y., Hansen, I. Schoonderbreek, & Hougaard, T. Thone, eds., 18. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog. Århus: Århus Universitet, pp. 337–358.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. (1995). WH-clefts and left-dislocations in English conversation. In Downing, P. A. & Noonan, M., eds., Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 247–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koops, C. & Hilpert, M. (2009). The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity: Diachronic and cross-linguistic aspects of pseudoclefts. In Givón, T. & Shibatani, M., eds., Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39(3), 463–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. & Ono, T. (2020). Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. & Henricson, S. (2022). Pseudo-cleft constructions in Swedish talk-in-interaction: Turn projection and discourse organization. Lingua, 265, 103–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. & Linell, P. (2007). Roli å roli. X-och-x som samtalspraktik och grammatisk konstruktion [‘Funny and funny’. X-and-x as a conversational practice and grammatical construction]. In Engdahl, E. & Londen, A.-M., eds., Interaktion och Kontext: Nio Studier av Svenska Samtal, pp. 19–89. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Lindström, J. & Londen, A.-M. (2014). Insertion concessive: An interactional practice as a discourse grammatical construction. Constructions, 9, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-464.Google Scholar
Linell, P., Hofvendahl, J., & Lindholm, C. (2003). Multi-unit question turns in institutional interactions: Sequential organizations and communicative functions. Text, 23(4), 539–571.Google Scholar
Linell, P. & Lindström, J. (2016). Partial intersubjectivity and sufficient understandings for current practical purposes: On a specialized practice in Swedish conversation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 39, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. & Mertzlufft, C. (2014). Evidence for a Dialogical Grammar: Reactive constructions in Swedish and German. In Günthner, S., Imo, W., & Bücker, J., eds., Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-grammar interface. Lingua, 265.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(1), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norén, K. & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: Some empirical substantiations. Pragmatics, 17, 387–416.Google Scholar
Norén, N. (2010). Pronominella returfrågor i tre vardagliga svenska samtal [Pronominal return questions in three Swedish everyday conversations]. In Lindholm, C. & Lindström, J., eds., Språk och Interaktion 2. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, pp. 29–71.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In Laury, R. & Suzuki, R., eds., Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 103–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, R. (2018). On some functions of salient initial accents in French talk-in-interaction: Intonational meaning and the interplay of prosodic, verbal and sequential properties of talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 48(1), 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In Givón, T., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–286.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 104–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2020). English why don’t you X as a formulaic expression. In Laury, R. & Ono, T., eds., Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S., Fox, B., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wide, C. (2009). Interactional construction grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Contexts and Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 111–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.