“Object complements” and conversation towards a realistic account

By Sandra A. Thompson. 2002

402 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/694591544d9840d0d7693498d0c26b723a09e70f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity (2006, background): “The utterance-initial occurrence of stance markers has been commented on in passing in some other studies as well, such as Biber et al. (1999), Anward (2000), and Thompson (2002).”
Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition (2007, background): “…are irrelevant for describing finite complementation; instead, he argues that the matrix clause (or, following Diessel and Tomasello (2001) and Thompson (2002), the ‘complement-taking clause’ or ‘CT-clause’) functions at level S (the intersubjective dimension of the construal dimension) while…”
Sentiment Analysis: An Overview from Linguistics (2016, neutral): “Thompson (2002) has discussed the need to consider introductory verbs such as think as markers of epistemic stance or evidentiality, and to reconsider the status of the clause as an “object complement”.”
The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse (2009, background): “Usage leads to different degrees of conventionalization of discourse patterns, including collocations (‘reusable fragments’ (Thompson 2002:141) or ‘prefabs’ (Erman & Warren 2000)) and more schematic constructions.”
The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies (2009, background): “…sense: the main clause in the prototypical question and prototypical declarative condition contains a light verb functioning as an epistemic marker (Thompson 2002; Verhagen 2005); thus, in imitating the subordinate clause only, the child repeats the gist of the stimulus sentence, showing that s/he…”
Construal and Perspectivization (2010, background): “This is strongly corroborated, at least for conversational interaction, in a study by Thompson (2002), showing that participants in conversation organize important aspects of their interaction, and of their (common) personal relationships with the things being talked about, by means of such…”
Responses to Wh-Questions in English Conversation (2010, background): ““Positionally sensitive grammar” embodies the claim that what we call the “grammar” of a language is actually a massive set of linguistic practices that have evolved in, and are organized in terms of, the sequential positions and actions of utterances in their everyday conversational habitat (Ford, ”