International Workshop - Interactional functions of syntax, syntactic functions of interaction

A growing body of research across linguistic theory, conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, and usage-based approaches converges on a central insight: syntax and interaction are deeply intertwined and mutually constitutive.

On the one hand, interaction provides the primary environment in which syntax is acquired, shaped, and made meaningful. Studies in language acquisition have shown that social interaction is a necessary condition for linguistic development (Ochs and Schieffelin 1983; Tomasello 1992, 2003; Nelson 2007). Interaction supplies both the motivational grounding for language learning and the inferential context needed to interpret linguistic structures. Joint attention, for instance, increases the density of linguistic production and supports lexical and constructional learning (Tomasello and Farrar 1986; Adamson et al. 2004), suggesting that cooperation plays a key role in the emergence of grammar (Tomasello 2003). In parallel, dialogic approaches have emphasized how speakers build utterances through reuse, alignment, and recombination across turns, highlighting the distributed and interactionally grounded nature of grammatical organization (Du Bois 2014).

On the other hand, syntax itself can be seen as a repertoire of adaptive solutions to recurrent interactional problems. A wide range of studies has shown that conversational environments systematically shape syntactic choices. Cross-linguistic work on repair (Fox et al. 2009), disfluency (Dingemanse et al. 2022), turn-taking (Stivers et al. 2009), and requests (Floyd et al. 2020) demonstrates that grammatical structures are sensitive to sequential organization and participant roles. Within languages, domains such as evidentiality, epistemicity (Heritage 2012), and deontic stance (Stevanovic and Peräkylä 2012) are tightly linked to specific interactional contingencies.

Within this broader perspective, several lines of research converge on a view of syntax as temporally emergent, incrementally organized, and tightly coupled with prosodic and interactional structure. Work on projection and online syntax has shown that syntactic structure unfolds in real time, allowing speakers to project possible continuations while maintaining flexibility for local adjustment (Auer 2005, 2009, 2014). At the same time, research on spoken language and its functional correlates has highlighted that grammatical organization is shaped by the conditions of online production, prosodic segmentation, and interactional monitoring (Voghera 2017, 2022). From this perspective, syntax is not fully pre-packaged prior to use, but is progressively assembled under temporal and interactional constraints.

Taken together, these approaches suggest that syntactic dependencies are not necessarily realized as closed, sentence-bounded units. Rather, they may be suspended, resumed, or distributed across intonational units, reflecting both processing constraints and interactional purposes. More generally, they point to a conception of grammar in which hierarchical structure coexists with temporal unfolding, projection, and sequential organization.

This raises a key theoretical question: to what extent can syntax be exploited as an interactional resource?

Conversational data suggest that speakers actively manipulate syntactic structure to manage attention, project upcoming actions, and coordinate participation. For instance, speakers may suspend a syntactic dependency across intonational boundaries in order to project continuation and hold the floor; delay the completion of a clause to create expectation or invite alignment; fragment canonical structures into sequences that align with turn-constructional units rather than sentence boundaries; or distribute the realization of a construction across multiple units or even across speakers. In such cases, syntax is not only shaped by online production constraints, but is strategically mobilized to organize participation and meaning-making in interaction.

These phenomena challenge sentence-based models of syntax and call for representations that integrate temporal unfolding, prosodic packaging, and sequential organization. More broadly, they suggest that grammar is best understood as a dynamic system emerging from usage, in which interaction is not an external factor but a constitutive dimension.

This workshop aims to bring together a small group of scholars working on syntax and spoken interaction from a theoretical perspective to address these issues. The goal is not only to compare empirical case studies, but also to advance a shared conceptual framework capable of accounting for the bidirectional relationship between syntax and interaction.

More specifically, the workshop will explore:
- how interactional structures constrain and shape syntactic form;
- how syntactic resources are mobilized for interactional purposes in real time;
- how projection, incrementality, and prosody interact with syntactic organization;
- how spoken data can inform broader theories of grammar beyond sentence-based models.

By fostering dialogue across different theoretical traditions, the workshop seeks to move towards a model of grammar that fully incorporates its interactional grounding and its dynamic, usage-based nature.

Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., & Deckner, D. F. (2004). The development of symbol-infused joint engagement. Child Development, 75(4), 1171–1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00732.x.

Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 25(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7

Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004

Auer, P. (2014). The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. InLiSt, 54, 1–25.

Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024

Dingemanse, M., Liesenfeld, A., & Woensdregt, M. (2022). Convergent cultural evolution of continuers (mmhm). In M. Ravignani et al. (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Language Evolution (JCoLE) (pp. 160–167). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/65c79

Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., & others. (2015). Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0136100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136100

Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Enfield, N. J. (2020). Getting others to do things: A pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Fox, B., Maschler, Y., & Uhmann, S. (2009). Morpho‑syntactic resources for the organization of same‑turn self‑repair: Cross‑linguistic variation in English, German and Hebrew. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10, 245–291.

Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684

Lytle, S. R., & Kuhl, P. K. (2017). Social interaction and language acquisition: Toward a neurobiological view. In E. M. Fernández & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 615–637). Wiley.

Nelson, K. (2007). Young minds in social worlds: Experience, meaning, and memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1983). Acquiring conversational competence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., & others. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn‑taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106

Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage‑based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57(6), 1454–1463.

Voghera, M. (2017). Dal parlato alla grammatica: Costruzione e forma dei testi spontanei. Roma: Carocci.

The workshop is conceived as a small-scale, discussion-driven event, aimed at fostering exchange among participants. Rather than a sequence of isolated presentations, it is designed as a collective exploration, where individual contributions feed into a shared reflection on the relationship between syntax and interaction. Particular emphasis is placed on open questions, points of tension, and the possibility of articulating common directions for future research.

Across the two days, invited speakers will present their work in 40-minute talks followed by 10 minutes of discussion. The program will include 4–6 talks on the first day and 3–4 on the second, leaving substantial time for collective discussion. Dedicated discussion sessions will ensure that participants can engage directly with one another, with the aim of identifying shared questions and potential avenues for collaboration.