| Description |
1 online resource : illustrations |
| Contents |
Cover -- Half-title page -- Title page -- Copyright page -- Dedication -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- List of Conversation Boards -- Acknowledgments -- List of Abbreviations -- Prologue -- 1 Interactional Language -- 1.1 Introducing Interactional Language -- 1.2 Toward a Grammar of Interactional Language -- 1.3 The Significance of Interactional Language -- 2 The Syntacticization of Speech Acts -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Classic Speech Act Theory -- 2.2.1 Situating Speech Act Theory -- 2.2.2 What Are Speech Acts? -- 2.3 The Linguistic Properties of Speech Acts -- 2.4 Syntacticizing Speech Acts Part I: The View from Generative Semantics -- 2.4.1 How to Encode Meaning in Syntax -- 2.4.2 Syntactic Underpinnings of the Performative Hypothesis -- 2.5 The Fate of the Performative Hypothesis -- 2.5.1 Arguments against Austin's Performative Hypothesis -- 2.5.2 Arguments against the Empirical Evidence -- 2.5.3 Arguments against the Syntacticization of Pragmatics -- 2.6 Syntacticizing Speech Acts Part II: Functional Architecture -- 2.6.1 Theoretical Background -- 2.6.2 A Dedicated Speech Act Structure -- 2.6.3 New Theories, New Problems -- 2.7 Conclusion -- 3 From Speech Acts to Interaction -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Philosophical Underpinnings -- 3.2.1 Assumptions about Conversations -- 3.2.2 Different Ways of Doing Things with Language -- 3.3 Dialogue-Based Frameworks -- 3.3.1 Conversation Analysis -- 3.3.2 Grounding Theory -- 3.4 Functional Grammar-Based Frameworks -- 3.4.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics -- 3.4.2 Functional Discourse Grammar -- 3.4.3 Longacre's Grammar of Discourse -- 3.4.4 Interactional Linguistics -- 3.5 Formal Grammar-Based Frameworks: The Semantic Angle -- 3.5.1 Formal Semantics of the Truth-Conditional Kind -- 3.5.2 Common Ground and Dynamic Semantics -- 3.5.3 The Question under Discussion and Being Inquisitive |
|
3.5.4 Toward a Formal Semantics of Dialogue -- 3.5.5 Expressive Dimensions and Other Forms of Language Use -- 3.6 Formal Grammar-Based Frameworks: The Syntactic Angle -- 3.7 Conclusion -- 4 The Interactional Spine Hypothesis -- 4.1 Problems I Want to Address -- 4.1.1 The Empirical Problem: Confirmationals and Response Markers -- 4.1.2 The Analytical Problem: The Need for a Framework -- 4.1.3 The Theoretical Problem: What Does It All Mean? -- 4.1.4 The Methodological Problem: Interactional Data -- 4.2 The Framework: The Universal Spine Hypothesis -- 4.3 What I Propose: The Interactional Spine Hypothesis -- 4.3.1 Extending the Universal Spine with Interactional Functions -- 4.3.2 Assumptions about the Normal Course of the Conversation -- 4.3.3 Methodology -- 4.3.4 Reporting Acceptability Judgments -- 5 Initiating Moves: A Case-Study of Confirmationals -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 The Grammar of Initiating Moves -- 5.2.1 The Function of Confirmationals -- 5.2.2 Confirmationals on the Interactional Spine -- 5.2.3 The Core Meaning of Confirmationals -- 5.2.4 Predictions -- 5.3 The Role of the Host Clause: Target of Confirmation -- 5.3.1 Declaratives -- 5.3.2 Interrogatives -- 5.3.3 Imperatives -- 5.3.4 Exclamatives -- 5.3.5 Summary -- 5.4 The Articulated GroundP -- 5.4.1 The Argument from Interpretation -- 5.4.2 The Argument from Differences in Confirmationals -- 5.4.3 The Argument from Multiple Sentence-Final Particles -- 5.4.4 The Argument from Clause-Type Restriction -- 5.4.5 Summary -- 5.5 Confirmational Paradigms -- 5.5.1 A Paradigmatic Contrast Based on [+/−coin] -- 5.5.2 The Timing of Grounding -- 5.5.3 The Gradability of Beliefs -- 5.6 Confirmationals and Their Kin -- 5.6.1 Narrative vs. Confirmational Eh -- 5.6.2 When Attitudes Need Not Be Confirmed -- 5.6.3 What Makes Us Uncertain: The Role of Evidence -- 5.7 Conclusion |
|
6 Reacting Moves: A Case-Study of Response Markers -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 The Grammar of Reacting Moves -- 6.2.1 RespP in Initiation and Reaction: Similarities and Differences -- 6.2.2 The Core Meaning of Response Markers -- 6.2.3 The Target of Response -- 6.3 Associating Response Markers with the Interactional Spine -- 6.3.1 Answering: When Response Markers Associate with CP -- 6.3.2 (Dis- )agreement: When Response Markers Associate with GroundSpkrP -- 6.3.3 Acknowledgment: When Response Markers Associate with GroundAdrP -- 6.3.4 Responding: When Response Markers Associate with RespP -- 6.4 Reacting with Emotions -- 6.4.1 Reactions and Emotions -- 6.4.2 Emotive Content via Prosodic Modification -- 6.4.3 Emotive Content via Complex Response Markers -- 6.4.4 Emotivity Is Not a Spinal Function -- 6.5 Conclusion -- 7 The Grammar of Interactional Language -- 7.1 Introduction -- 7.2 The Syntacticization of Verbal Interaction -- 7.2.1 The Interactional Spine Hypothesis -- 7.2.2 Ingredients of the Interactional Spine Hypothesis -- 7.3 Toward a Formal Typology of Interactional Language -- 7.3.1 What Is a Formal Typology of Interactional Language? -- 7.3.2 Where and How and When -- 7.3.3 More Predictions of the Interactional Spine Hypothesis -- 7.4 Exploring the Cognitive Underpinnings of the Grammar of Interaction -- 7.4.1 Evidence for Cognitive Underpinnings -- 7.4.2 Do Interactive Abilities Precede Linguistic Abilities? -- 7.4.3 Interactive Abilities Are Also Linguistic Abilities: The Bridge Model -- 7.5 Conclusions and Further Questions -- 7.5.1 Conclusion -- 7.5.2 Logophoricity -- 7.5.3 Genre, Style, and Subjectivity -- 7.5.4 Information Structure -- 7.5.5 The Role of Intonation -- 7.5.6 The Clause Type-Speech Act Mapping -- Epilogue -- Bibliography -- Index |
| Summary |
Traditional grammar and current theoretical approaches towards modelling grammatical knowledge ignore language in interaction: that is, words such as huh, eh, yup or yessssss. This groundbreaking book addresses this gap by providing the first in-depth overview of approaches towards interactional language across different frameworks and linguistic sub-disciplines. Based on the insights that emerge, a formal framework is developed to discover and compare language in interaction across different languages: the interactional spine hypothesis. Two case-studies are presented: confirmationals (such as eh and huh) and response markers (such as yes and no), both of which show evidence for systematic grammatical knowledge. Assuming that language in interaction is regulated by grammatical knowledge sheds new light on old questions concerning the relation between language and thought and the relation between language and communication. It is essential reading for anyone interested in the relation between language, cognition and social interaction |
| Subject |
Sociolinguistics.
|
|
Grammar, Comparative and general.
|
|
Social interaction.
|
|
Colloquial language.
|
|
sociolinguistics.
|
|
Colloquial language
|
|
Grammar, Comparative and general
|
|
Social interaction
|
|
Sociolinguistics
|
| Form |
Electronic book
|
| ISBN |
9781108625463 |
|
1108625460 |
|
9781108693707 |
|
1108693709 |
|
