Chapter 6 presents a case-study of response markers and introduces a syntactic analysis within the framework of the Interactional Spine Hypothesis. Response markers are units of language which are used to respond to previous moves. I show that the target of confirmation can differ depending on the syntactic context. Response markers show the same pattern of multi-functionality as confirmationals do, providing evidence that there is a system in place which regulates both types of units of language. I compare my analysis to previous analyses of response markers and show that none of them are adequate because they restrict their attention to response markers used as answers to polar questions. This is, however, only one use of response markers: they can also be used to express agreement, acknowledge the addressee’s belief, or simply indicate that the responder is listening. The interactional spine predicts precisely these functions. I further show that response markers can be modified prosodically to express all kinds of emotional content and I develop an analysis for this pattern.

Chapter 3 provides a review of current frameworks intended to understand interactional language. It serves as the basis to develop a grammar of interactional language Classic speech act theory, and current attempts to syntacticize it, do not take into consideration the interactional dimension, specifically the role of the addressee in constructing common ground. This chapter reviews several frameworks that take the interactional dimension into consideration. Specifically, I review dialogue-based models (conversation analysis and grounding theory), several functional grammar-based models, as well as recent formal semantic and syntactic approaches toward interactional language. The core lessons learned from these frameworks are that the unit of analysis of interactional language is a minimal conversation consisting of an initiating and a reaction move and that the construction of common ground is an interactive process. It further implies that we have to rethink the classic distinction between competence and performance. Itshows that what these frameworks are missing is a way to disentangle the various factors that contribute to the interpretation of discourse markers. Consequently, it becomes impossible to develop a typology. In contrast, formal syntactic approaches, while well equipped for cross-linguistic comparison, have not explored interactional language and consequently they lack the empirical base necessary to develop a typology. This chapter is the first attempt to survey these frameworks