Difference between revisions of "Auer2005a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
Line 9: Line 9:
 
|Volume=25
 
|Volume=25
 
|Number=1
 
|Number=1
|Pages=7-36
+
|Pages=7–36
|Note=earlier publishes as InList 33, 2002: http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/33/index.htm
+
|URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.1.2005.25.issue-1/text.2005.25.1.7/text.2005.25.1.7.xml
|Abstract=In this paper, I argue that there are fundamental common features shared
+
|DOI=10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
by interaction and grammar that suggest some kind of interdependence
+
|Note=Earlier publishes as InList 33, 2002: http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/33/index.htm
between the two and a nonautonomy of the language faculty; one of these
+
|Abstract=In this paper, I argue that there are fundamental common features shared by interaction and grammar that suggest some kind of interdependence between the two and a nonautonomy of the language faculty; one of these fundamental common features is that of ‘projectability’. Human interaction rests on the possibility of projection; the grammars of human languages provide interlocutors with sedimentated and shared ways of organizing them.
fundamental common features is that of ‘projectability’. Human interaction
 
rests on the possibility of projection; the grammars of human languages
 
provide interlocutors with sedimentated and shared ways of organizing
 
them.
 
Empirical evidence for this view comes from structural homologies
 
between action projection and grammatical projection. In particular, it is
 
shown (on the basis of conversational examples from German) that in
 
both cases: (1) the strength of the projective force can vary; (2) emerging
 
gestalts can be framed by weakly projecting introductions; (3) projections
 
can be interrupted; (4) full gestalts can be expanded; and (5) projections
 
can be abandoned.
 
  
The projectability of syntactic as well as sequence structures suggests an
+
Empirical evidence for this view comes from structural homologies between action projection and grammatical projection. In particular, it is shown (on the basis of conversational examples from German) that in both cases: (1) the strength of the projective force can vary; (2) emerging gestalts can be framed by weakly projecting introductions; (3) projections can be interrupted; (4) full gestalts can be expanded; and (5) projections can be abandoned.
approach to syntax that takes into account the temporal unfolding of speech
+
 
in time. It also suggests looking at the indeterminate areas between syntax
+
The projectability of syntactic as well as sequence structures suggests an approach to syntax that takes into account the temporal unfolding of speech in time. It also suggests looking at the indeterminate areas between syntax and conversational structure in which the borderline between grammar and interaction can only be drawn on an ad hoc basis.
and conversational structure in which the borderline between grammar and
 
interaction can only be drawn on an ad hoc basis.
 
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 12:16, 3 November 2019

Auer2005a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Auer2005a
Author(s) Peter Auer
Title Projection in interaction and projection in grammar
Editor(s)
Tag(s) IL, projection (grammar), projection (conversation), prefatory activities, insertions, expansions, syntax and interaction.
Publisher
Year 2005
Language
City
Month
Journal Text
Volume 25
Number 1
Pages 7–36
URL Link
DOI 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that there are fundamental common features shared by interaction and grammar that suggest some kind of interdependence between the two and a nonautonomy of the language faculty; one of these fundamental common features is that of ‘projectability’. Human interaction rests on the possibility of projection; the grammars of human languages provide interlocutors with sedimentated and shared ways of organizing them.

Empirical evidence for this view comes from structural homologies between action projection and grammatical projection. In particular, it is shown (on the basis of conversational examples from German) that in both cases: (1) the strength of the projective force can vary; (2) emerging gestalts can be framed by weakly projecting introductions; (3) projections can be interrupted; (4) full gestalts can be expanded; and (5) projections can be abandoned.

The projectability of syntactic as well as sequence structures suggests an approach to syntax that takes into account the temporal unfolding of speech in time. It also suggests looking at the indeterminate areas between syntax and conversational structure in which the borderline between grammar and interaction can only be drawn on an ad hoc basis.

Notes

Earlier publishes as InList 33, 2002: http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/33/index.htm