.
. <…>
[Cohen 1996
].
/
[
].
-taxonomie und kommunikative Grammatik» [1989; 2003], «Language as dialogue: from rules to
principles of probability» [2009],
», 1980).
» [Weigand 2009: 62].
wo-part dialogic
sequence) [
]
[
].
[1980],
(?)
1
[Sinclair & Coulthard 1975];
Initiation
Response
Follow-up
[Sinclair 1992];
Proposition
Reaction
Evaluation
[Roulet 1992],
;
.
[2001]
.
): «
.
-, .
-(1)
(
)
<…> B.
Imper
[NEG] X,
Imper
[AFF] Y
,Imper
[NEG] X.
b) *
(
):
-7
.
.
-1970.
- 1972.
-1974.
[2-6
[ 1990: 354].
7
–313.
Cohen Phil. Dialogue Modeling // Giovanni Battista Varile, Antonio Zampolli (eds.). Survey of the State of the Art
http://www.cslu.ogi.edu/HLTsurvey/ch6node5.html].
Mehan Hugh.The structure of classroom discourse // T.A. van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. III. London, 1985. Pp. 120–131.
Roulet E. On the structure of conversation as negotiation // J.R. Searle & al. (On) Searle on conversation. Amsterdam, 1992. Pp. 91–99.
Sinclair J. M., & Coulthard R. M. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London, 1975.
Sinclair J. M. Trust the text // M. Davies and L. Ravelli (eds.). Advances in Systemic Linguistics. Recent Theory and Practice. London, 1992
.
Pp. 5–19.Weigand Edda. Sprache als Dialog. Sprechakttaxonomie und kommunikative Grammatik. Tübingen, 1989
(Linguistische Arbeiten 204). 2- übingen, 2003.