Relative Clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction

Studies in Language

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 293-326

  Fox, Barbara A ^a   Thompson, Sandra A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548252888     PISSN: 03784177     EISSN: 15699978     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/sl.31.2.03fox     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ariel, Mira. 1999. Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language 23(2): 217-269.
2. Akatsuka, Noriko and Patricia M. Clancy. 1993. Conditionality and deontic modality in Japanese and Korean: Evidence from the emergence of conditionals. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2: 177-192.
3. Auer, Peter; Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Frank Müller. 1999. Language in time. Oxford: OUP.
4. Berk, Lynn M. 1999. English syntax: From word to discourse. New York NY: OUP.
5. Biber, Douglas; Stig Johansson; Geoffrey Leech; Edward Finegan; Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
6. Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. That's 'that'. The Hague: Mouton.
7. Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Intonation and its parts. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
8. Bybee, Joan. 1998. The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 34:421-435.
9. Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: CUP.
10. Bybee, Joan. 2002a. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of repetition. Handbook of historical linguistics, Richard Janda and Brian Joseph (eds.), 602-623. Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Bybee, Joan. 2002b. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. The rise of language out of pre-language, Bertram Malle and T. Givon (eds.), 109-132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper (eds.). 2001a. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper (eds.). 2001b. Introduction. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds.), 1-24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14. Bybee, Joan and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37(3): 575-596.
15. Bybee, Joan and Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 378-388. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
16. Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
17. Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd ed.). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
18. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1993. English speech rhythm. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1999. Varieties of conditionals and their emergence in discourse. Arbeitspapier 99: Issues in interdisciplinary research on the lexicon, Aditi Lahiri; Alexander Pasterovsky and Christophe Strauss (eds.), 89-130. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.
20. Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: CUP.
21. Diessel, Holger and Michael Tomasello. 2000. The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive linguistics 11(1/2): 131-151.
22. Diessel, Holger and Michael Tomasello. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 97-141.
23. Du Bois, John; Stephan Schuetze-Coburn; Danae Paolino and Susanna Cumming. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. Talking data: Transcription and coding methods for language research, Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert (eds.), 45-89. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Duranti, Alessandro and Elinor Ochs. 1979. Left-dislocation in Italian conversation. Discourse and syntax, Talmy Givön (ed.), 377-416. New York NY: Academic Press.
25. Fox, Barbara A. 1994. Contextualization, indexicality, and the distributed nature of grammar. Language Sciences 16(l):l-37.
26. Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From discourse process to grammatical construction: On left dislocation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27. Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28. Guy, Gregory R. and Robert Bayley. 1995. On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70(2): 148-162.
29. Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781-819.
30. Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
31. Hopper, Paul, J. 1998. Emergent grammar. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Hopper, Paul. 2000. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? Applied cognitive linguistics: Theory, acquisition and language pedagogy, Martin Pütz and Susanne Niemeier (eds.), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
33. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251-299.
34. Jaeger, T. Florian and Thomas Wasow. To appear. Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 41.
35. Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
36. Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2004. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37. Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Relative clauses. Language typology and syntactic description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 141-170. Cambridge: CUP.
38. Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. Pragmaticaly motivated syntax: Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. Chicago Linguistic Society Parasession 22:115-126.
39. Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 319-339.
40. Lehmann, Hans Martin. 2002. Zero subject relative constructions in American and British English. New frontiers of corpus research, Pam Peters (ed.), 163-177. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
41. Manes, Joan and Nessa Wolfson. 1981. The compliment formula. Conversational Routines. Florian Coulmas (ed.), 115-132. The Hague: Mouton.
42. Nicita, Linda. 2002. Cognitive verbs in Spanish. PhD dissertation, University of Colorado.
43. Payne, Thomas. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: CUP.
44. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, Joan L. Bybee and Paul J. Hopper (eds.), 137-144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
45. Pomerantz, Anita M. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9: 219-30.
46. Quirk, Randolph. 1957. Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38: 97-109.
47. Quirk, Randolph S; Geoffrey Leech; Sidney Greenbaum and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A grammar of contemporary English, London: Longman.
48. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1995. Sequence organization. UCLA ms.
49. Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105-124.
50. Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. London: Longman.
51. Temperley, David. 2003. Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language 79(3): 464-484.
52. Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. 'Object complements' and conversation: towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125-164.
53. Thompson, Sandra A. and Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, Joan L. Bybee and Paul J. Hopper (eds.), 27-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
54. Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991a. A Quantitative perspective on the gram-maticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. Grammaticalization II, Elizabeth Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), 313-339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
55. Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991b. The discourse conditions for the use of complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237-51.
56. Tomasello, Michael and Daniel Stahl. 2004. Sampling children's spontaneous speech: How much is enough? Journal of Child Language 31(1): 101-121.
57. Tottie, Gunnel. 1995. The man Ø I love: An analysis of factors favouring zero relatives in written British and American English. Studies in Anglistics, Gunnel Melchers and Beatrice Warren (eds.), 201-215. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
58. Tottie, Gunnel. 1997. Relatively speaking: relativizer marker usage in the British National Corpus. To explain the present: studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen and Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), 465-481. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
59. Tottie, Gunnel and Hans Martin Lehmann. 1999. The realization of relative adverbials in present-day British English. Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell (eds.), 137-157. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
60. Tottie, Gunnel and Hans Martin Lehmann. 2002. As and other relativizers after same in present-day standard English'. From the COLT's mouth, and other places: Studies in honour of Anna-Brita Stenström, Leiv Egil Breivik and Angela Hasselgren (eds.), 231-245. Amsterdam: Rodopi.