Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T02:40:19.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Data is data and model is model: You don’t discard the data that doesn’t fit your model!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ritva Laury  and
Tsuyoshi Ono
Ritva Laury*
Affiliation:
California State University, Fresno and University of Helsinki
Tsuyoshi Ono*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
*
Laury, Department of Linguistics Peters Business Building, Room 383 California State University, Fresno 5245 North Backer Avenue Fresno, CA 93740-8001 [ritval@csufresno.edul]
Ono, Department of East Asian Studies 400 Arts, University of Alberta Edmonton, AB Canada T6G 2E6 [tono@ualberta.ca]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Discussion Notes
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 218 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ashby, William, and Bentivoglio, Paola. 1993. Preferred argument structure in spoken French and Spanish. Language Variation and Change 5. 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan; and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of repetition. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 602–23. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Hopper, Paul (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere; and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–55.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John, Kumpf, Lorraine; and Ashby, William (eds.) 2003. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnie, and Waugh, Linda R.. 2003. On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, ed. by Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F., 225–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1994. Contextualization, indexicality, and the distributed nature of grammar. Language Sciences 16. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1978. The evolution of French syntax: A comparative approach. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Syntax in the making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation. (Studies in discourse and grammar 9.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2004. Shared syntax: The grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 1315–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–57.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig, and Hofland, Knut. 1989. Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar based on the LOB corpus, vol. 1: Tag frequencies and word frequencies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. (Language in society 20.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. On the status of SVO sentences in French discourse. Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Tomlin, Russell, 217–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 2001. Shakespeare’s sounds. Reading Shakespeare’s language: A guide (The Arden Shakespeare), ed. by Adamson, Sylvia, Hunter, Lynette, Magnusson, Lynne, Thompson, Ann, and Wales, Katie, 257–69. London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 2002. Interaction, grounding and third-person referential forms. Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (Cognitive linguistics research 21), ed. by Brisard, Frank, 83–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: ‘Second person’ reference in multi-party conversation. Pragmatics 6. 281–94.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79. 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel; and Thompson, Sandra (eds.) 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1995. What can conversation tell us about syntax? Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes, ed. by Davis, Philip W., 213–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2003. Japanese (w)atashi/ore/boku ‘I’: They’re not just pronouns. Cognitive Linguistics 14. 321–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, ed. by Resnick, Lauren B., Levine, John M., and Teasley, Stephanie D., 150–71. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 1998. Läsnäolon pronominit: Tämä, tuo, st ja hän viittaamassa keskustelun osallistujaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thompson, Sandra A., and Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Bybee & Hopper, 27–60.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell (ed.) 1987. Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar