Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:49:01.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2015

Sandra A. Thompson ,
Barbara A. Fox  and
Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
Sandra A. Thompson
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Barbara A. Fox
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Grammar in Everyday Talk
Building Responsive Actions
 , pp. 321 - 336
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aelbrecht, Lobke (2010) The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke and Rapley, Mark (2000) “‘Brilliant. Next question…’: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(3): 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles and Kent, Alexandra (2012) Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics 44(6–7): 876–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyle, Michael (1975 [2010]) Bodily Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aronsson, Karin and Cekaite, Asta (2011) Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse and Society 22: 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, Hardt, Daniel, and Busquets, Joan (2001) Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18(1):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Atkinson J. and Heritage, John, eds. (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter (1996) On the prosody and syntax of turn-taking. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody and conversation, pp. 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter (2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1): 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter (2014) Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests: Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax. Pragmatics 24(3): 533–560.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Müller, Frank (1999) Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark (2003) Interaction of ellipsis and binding: Implications for the sequencing of Principle A. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(2): 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Scott (2012) On ‘that’s right’ and its combination with other tokens. Journal of Pragmatics 44(3): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar (2011) Double sayings of German ‘ja’: More observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(2): 157–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth, and Selting, Margret, eds. (2010) Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, Ellen (1990) Nonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Trevor (2012) When problems pass us by: Using ‘you mean’ to help locate the source of trouble. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 82–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Trevor and Mazeland, Harrie (2012) Conversation analysis and other– initiated repair. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics [DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1310].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Trevor and Walker, Traci (2013) Managing problems of acceptability through high rise–fall repetitions. Discourse Processes 50(2),107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina and Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2011) Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication 61(1): 94–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl (2011 [1934]) Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2001) Frequency effects on French liaison. In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, pp. 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givon, Talmy and Malle, Bertram, eds., The Evolution of Language from Pre-language, pp. 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2006) From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Wynn (1988) On ellipsis. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Childs, Carrie (2012a) Directing and requesting: Two interactive uses of the mental state terms ‘want’ and ‘need.’ Text & Talk 32(6): 727–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Carrie (2012b) ‘I’m not X, I just want Y’: Formulating ‘wants’ in interaction. Discourse Studies 14(2): 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. (2013) Turn constructional units and the transition relevance place in conversation. In Stivers, Tanya and Sidnell, Jack, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 150–166. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., Elliott, Marc, Heritage, John, and Laurie, MacDonald (2006) Historical trends in questioning presidents 1953–2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly 36(4): 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. and John, Heritage (2002a) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. and John, Heritage (2002b) Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U. S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52(4): 749–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. and John, Heritage (2014) Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca (2001) Meaning in interaction: the case of actually. Language 77(2): 245–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1993) English speech rhythm: Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2001) Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society 30: 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2007) Assessing and accounting. In Holt, Elizabeth and Clift, Rebecca, eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, pp. 81–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2012) Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In de Ruiter, Jan Peter, ed., Questions, pp. 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2014) What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3): 623–647.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Marja, Etelämäki (2014) On divisions of labor in request and offer environments. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 115–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A. (2014) Forms of responsivity: Grammatical formats for responding to two types of request in conversation. In Günthner, Susanne, Imo, Wolfgang, and Bücker, Jörg, eds., Grammar and Dialogism, pp. 109–138. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Ono, Tsuyoshi (2007) Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective. Pragmatics 17(4): 513–552.Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra. and Potter, Jonathan (2010) Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies 12(4): 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan (2010) Conventionalised Impoliteness Formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12): 3232–3245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci. S. (2005) Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: The phonetic differentiation of ‘repetitions.’ Discourse Processes 39(1): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci. S. (2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 38(8): 1257–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci. S. and Drew, Paul (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2): 129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Judy (1984) Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John, eds., Structures of Social Action, pp. 102–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark and Enfield, Nick J. (2015) Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 1: 98–118. doi 10.2478/opli-2014-0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (1997) ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28(1): 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (2005) Is ‘confusion’ a state of mind? In Molder, Hedwig te and Potter, Jonathan, eds., Conversation and Cognition, pp. 161–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (2012) What drives sequences?. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul and Holt, Elizabeth (1988) Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35(4): 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul and Holt, Elizabeth (1998) Figures of speech: Idiomatic expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society 27(4): 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2003) Discourse and grammar. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 2, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2007) The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Robert, ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, pp. 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro (1993) Intentions, self, and responsibility: An essay in Samoan ethnopragmatics. In Hill, Jane and Irvine, Judith, eds., Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, pp. 24–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egbert, Maria (1997) Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Research in Language and Social Interaction 30(1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Maria and Monika, Vöge (2008) Wh-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German ‘warum’ (why) and ‘wieso’ (why) and English (why). Discourse Studies 10(1): 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elugardo, Reinaldo and Stainton, Robert (2005) Ellipsis and nonsentential speech. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmertsen, Sofie and Heinemann, Trine (2010) Realization as a device for remedying problems of affiliation in interaction. Research in Language and Social Interaction 43(2): 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. (2006) Social consequences of common ground. In Enfield, Nick J. and Levinson, Stephen C. eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, pp. 399–430. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. (2011) Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge, and agency. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. (2013) Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. and Stivers, Tanya, eds. (2007) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, Robert and Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, eds (2014) Discourse participants in interaction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on subject expression and ellipsis. Journal of Pragmatics 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1976) Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5: 25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1981) How to make and understand a request. In Parret, Herman, Sbisa, Marina, and Verschueren, Jef, eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics, pp. 195–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas (1993) Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In Foley, William A., ed., The role of theory in linguistic description, pp. 243–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fasulo, Alessandra and Chiara, Monzoni (2009) Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. (1988) The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar.’ BLS 14:35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. (1989) Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, Rainer and Graumann, Carl F., eds., Language Processing in Social Context, 17–38. Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. (1996) The pragmatics of constructions. In Slobin, Dan, Gerhardt, Julie, Kyratzis, Amy and Guo, Jiansheng, eds., Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Erving-Tripp, pp. 53–71. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and O’Connor, Mary Catherine (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. (2001a) At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next. In Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. (2001b) Denial and the construction of conversational turns. In Bybee, Joan and Noonan, Michael, eds., Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse, pp. 61–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. (2011) Multimodal formulations in transition spaces. Paper presented at Social Action Formats: Conversational Patterns in Embodied Interaction. May 17–19, 2011, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and Fox, Barbara A. (2010) Multiple practices for constructing laughables. In Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth, and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Interaction, pp. 339–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. and Hellerman, John (2004) Getting past no. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Ford, Cecilia E., eds., Sound Patterns in Interaction, pp. 233–269. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A. (2013) Units or action trajectories: The language of grammatical categories and the language of social action. In Szczepek-Reed, Beatrice and Raymond, Geoffrey, eds., Units of Talk, Units of Action, pp. 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Thompson, Sandra A., and Drake, Veronika (2012) Bodily–visual practices and turn continuation. Discourse Processes 49(3–4): 192–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, Barbara A. (1987) Anaphora and the Structure of Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (1996) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 9: 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (2011) Social action formats revisited: exploring action and grammar. Paper presented at Social Action Formats: Conversational Patterns in Embodied Interaction. May 17–19, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra. A. (2010) Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2): 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freed, Alice (1994) The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 621–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freese, Jeremy and Maynard, Douglas W. (1998) Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society 27(2): 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod (2001) When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod (1976) Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 257–313.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod (1979) Footing. Semiotica 25: 1–29.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea (2005) Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea (2010) Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies 12(2): 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea (2012) German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(3): 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea and Betz, Emma (2008) German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27(1): 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea, Betz, Emma, Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, and Drake, Veronika (2012) Repeated assessments. Paper presented at the National Communication Association 2012 Annual Convention, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea and Fagyal, Zsuzsanna (2008) Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ‘ja’ and the role of prosody: A conversation-analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(3): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Jo Ann (1975) A system for the transfer of instructions in natural settings. Semiotica 14(3): 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. [www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/publish.htm]Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1984) Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John eds., Structures of Social Action, pp. 225–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1986a) Between and within: Alternative treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies 9: 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1986b) Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text 6(3): 283–316.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (2007) Interactive footing. In Holt, Elizabeth and Clift, Rebecca, eds., Reporting Talk, pp. 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (2010) Things and their embodied environments. In Malafouris, Lambros and Renfrew, Colin, eds., The Cognitive Life of Things, pp. 103–120. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1987) Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1): 1–54.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1992) Assessments and the construction of context. In Goodwin, Charles and Duranti, Alessandro, eds., Rethinking Context, pp. 147–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2004) Participation. In Duranti, Alessandro, ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 222–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1980) Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry 50: 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1990) He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1997) By-play: Negotiating evaluation in story-telling. In Guy, Gregory R., Baugh, John, Schiffrin, Deborah and Feagin, Crawford, eds., Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, pp. 77–102. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2006) Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text and Talk 26(4/5): 513–542.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. and Cekaite, Asta (2013) Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 46: 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. and Cekaite, Asta (2014) Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 185–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne (1996) The prosodic contextualization of moral work: an analysis of reproaches in ‘why’-formats. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation, pp. 271–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddington, Pentti (2006) The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text and Talk 26(3): 281–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli (2001a) On some uses of the discourse particle ‘kyl(lä)’ in Finnish conversation. In Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 171–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli (2001b) Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes–no questions. Pragmatics 11: 1–15.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2009) Designing utterances for action: Verb repeat responses to assessments. In Haakana, Markku, Laakso, Minna, and Lindström, Jan, eds., Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, pp. 124–151. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2011) Ways of agreeing with negative stance taking. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 235–256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru (2011) Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jan, eds., The Morality of Knowing in Conversation, pp. 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru (2013a) Question design in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 395–414. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru (2013b) Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation. Ph.D. diss. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto and Kushida, Shuya (2013) Responding with resistance to Wh-Questions in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(3): 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack (2013) Conversational repair and human understanding: An introduction. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack, eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 1–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Christian (1986) Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Lena (2011) Non-coordination-based ellipsis from a construction grammar perspective: The case of the coffee construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1): 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine (2006) ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine (2009) Two answers to inapposite inquiries. In Sidnell, Jack, ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, Lindström, Anna, and Steensig, Jakob (2011) Addressing epistemic incongruence in question–answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 107–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa and Bolden, Galina B. (2013) The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 57–76. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John, eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1998) Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27: 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara, and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 196–224. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 159–183. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2012b) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2013) Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 370–394. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1):15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey (2012) Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter, Jan Peter, ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, pp. 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Roth, Andrew L. (1995) Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 1–60.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane and Irvine, Judith, eds. (1993) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoey, Elliott. (2014) Sighing in interaction: Somatic, semiotic, and social. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(2): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman (1992) Über Verumfokus im Deutschen. In Jacobs, Joachim, ed., Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, pp. 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth (2012) Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4): 430–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. (1997a) Dispersed verbal predicates in vernacular written narrative. In Kamio, Akio, ed., Directions in Functional Linguistics, pp. 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. (1997b) Discourse and the category ‘verb’ in English. Language and Communication 17(2): 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. (1998) Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, Michael, ed., The New Psychology of Language, pp. 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. (2011) Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan, eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, pp. 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke (1987) Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal–Acceptance Sequences. Dordrecht and Providence: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Roman (1960) Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas, ed., Style in Language, pp. 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1978) Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Schenkein, Jim, ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, pp. 219–248. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1980) On ‘trouble-premonitory’ response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50: 53–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1981) The abominable ‘ne?’ An exploration of post-response pursuit of response. In Shröder, P., ed., Sprache der Gegenwaart, pp. 53–88. Dusseldorf. BRD: Pedagogischer Verlag Schwann. [expanded Version in Manchester Sociology Occasional Papers (1981), No. 6, 1–82]Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1984) Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In D’Urso, Valentina and Leonardi, Paolo, eds., Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetorics, pp. 11–38. Padova: CLEUP.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1988) On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35(4): 418–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1990) List construction as a task and interactional resource. In Psathas, George, ed., Interactional Competence, pp. 63–92. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H., ed., Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, pp. 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kyle, ed. (2008) Topics in Ellipsis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaimaki, Marianna (2011) Sequentially determined function of pitch contours: The case of English news receipts. York Papers in Linguistics 2(3): 49–73.Google Scholar
Kaimaki, Marianna (2012) Sequential and prosodic design of English and Greek non-valenced news receipts. Language and Speech 55(1): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamio, Akio (1997) Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise (2007) The role of ‘I guess’ in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, Robert, ed. Stancetaking in Discourse, pp. 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise and Keisanen, Tiina (2011) Social action formats in embodied interaction. Paper presented at Social Action Formats: Conversational Patterns in Embodied Interaction. May 17–19, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise and Keisanen, Tiina (2012) Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies 14(5): 587–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles J. (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo (2010) Minimal answers to yes–no questions in the service of sequence organization. Discourse Studies 12(3): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina and Rauniomaa, Mirka (2012) The organization of participation and contingency in prebeginnings of request sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4): 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam (2003) Some uses of the head shake. Gesture 2(2): 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. and Drew, Paul (2014) The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 87–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kent, Alexandra (2012) Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies 14(6): 711–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino (2015) Displaying now-understanding: The Finnish change-of-state token aa. Discourse Processes 52(2): 111–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William and Fanshel, David (1977) Therapeutic Discourse. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert D. (1996) Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom and Benmamoun, Elabbas (1999) Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee (2013) Response design in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 415–432. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. (1994) Responsive list construction: A conversational resource for accomplishing multifaceted social action. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(1): 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (1987) Minimization and conversational inference. In Papi, Marcella Bertuccelli and Verschueren, Jef, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, pp. 61–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (1988) Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In Drew, Paul and Wootton, Anthony, eds., Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, pp. 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2007) Optimizing person reference – perspectives from usage on Rossel Island. In Enfield, Nick J. and Stivers, Tanya, eds., Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives, pp. 29–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2010) Questions and responses in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2741–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2013) Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 103–130. Malden, MA, Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna (1997) Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Uppsala: Institutionen för Nordiska Spräk vid Uppsaka Universitet.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna (2005) Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret, eds., Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, pp. 209–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna (2009) Projecting nonalignment in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack, ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 135–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna and Mondada, Lorenza (2009) Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language & Social Interaction 42(10): 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2013) Affiliation in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 350–369. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local, John (1996) Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation: Ethnomethodological Studies, pp. 177–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local, John (2007) Phonetic detail in talk-in-interaction: On the deployment and interplay of sequential context and phonetic resources. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 28: 67–86.Google Scholar
Local, John and Walker, Gareth (2008) Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text & Talk 28(6): 723–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1997) The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in Conversational Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30(2): 93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (2003) Bad News Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. and Freese, Jeremy (2012) Good news, bad news, and affect: Practical and temporal ‘emotion work’ in everyday life. In Peräkylä, Anssi and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, eds., Emotion in Interaction, pp. 92–112. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie (1992) Vraag/antwoord-Sequenties [question/answer sequences]. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU. [published version of: Harrie Mazeland (1992) Vraag/antwoord-sequenties. Ph.D. diss., University of Groningen]Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza (2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 329–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mori, Junko (2006) The workings of the Japanese token hee in informing sequences: An analysis of sequential context, turn shape, and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38(8): 1175–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morita, Emi (2005) Negotiation of Contingent Talk: The Japanese Interactional Particles ne and sa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard (2006) Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1752–1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann (1999) Whales, Candlelight and Shit Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1978) Compliment responses: Notes of the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, Jim, ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, pp. 79–112. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1980) Telling my side: limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John, eds., Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1988) Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monograph 55: 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prkachin, Kenneth M. (2009) Assessing pain by facial expression: facial expression as nexus. Pain Research & Management 14(1): 53–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Progovac, Ljiljana, Paesanii, Kate, Casielles, Eugenia, and Bartee, Ellen (2006) The Syntax of Nonsentials. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan, eds. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raclaw, Joshua (2013) Indexing inferables and organizational shifts: ‘no’-prefaces in English conversation. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Rae, John (2001) Organizing participation in interaction: Doing participation framework. Research on Language in Social Interaction 34(2): 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauniomaa, Mirka and Keisanen, Tiina (2012) Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 829–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2000) The structure of responding. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., UCLA.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes–no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2013) At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: On the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. In Beatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, eds., Units of Talk– Units of Action, pp. 169–206. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey and Heritage, John (2006) The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in society 35(5): 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey and Heritage, John (2013) One question after another: Same-turn-repair in the formation of yes–no type initiating actions. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack, eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 213–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reber, Elisabeth (2012) Affectivity in Interaction: Sound Objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Felicia and Francis, Alexander L. (2013) Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(6). [http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4802900]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, Jeffery D. (2013) Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack, eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 411–465. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. and Kevoe-Feldman, Heidi (2010) Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(3): 232–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossano, Federico (2013) Gaze in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack, and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 308–329. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni (2012) Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes 49(5): 426–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni (2014) When do people not use language to make requests? In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 303–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna and Anssi, Peräkylä (2009) Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1974) An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In Bauman, Richard and Sherzer, Joel, eds., Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, pp. 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1975) Everyone has to lie. In Blount, Ben and Sanches, Mary, eds., Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, pp. 57–79. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1978) Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. In Schenkein, J., ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, pp. 249–269. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey and Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, George, ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 15–21. New York, Irvington.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1980) Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question.’ Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, Deborah, ed, Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, 71–93. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1986) The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9: 111–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1989) Reflections of language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. In Bornstein, Marc H. and Bruner, Jerome S., eds., Interaction in Human Development, pp. 139–153. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1996a) Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Interaction and Grammar, pp. 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1996b) Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction, and co-participation context. In Hovy, Eduard and Scott, Donia, eds., Discourse Processing: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 3–35. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1997) Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23: 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail, and Sacks, Harvey (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. and Lerner, Gene (2009) Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret (1992) Prosody in conversational questions. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 315–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret (1996) On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics 6(3): 357–388.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret (1997) Sogenannte Ellipsen als interaktiv relevante Konstruktionen? Ein neuer Versuch über die Reichweite und Grenzen des Ellipsenbegriffs für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache in Interaktionen. In Schlobinski, Peter, ed., Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch, pp. 117–156. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret (2007) Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 39(3): 483–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Auer, Peter, et al. (2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2) Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402. [www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de]Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack and Barnes, Rebecca (2013) Alternative, subsequent descriptions. In Makoto, Hayashi, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack, eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 511–541. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack and Enfield, Nick J. (2012) Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology 53(3): 302–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2001a) Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2001b) Simple answers to polar questions. In Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2002) Recipient activities: the particle no as a go-ahead response in Finnish conversations. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 164–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena and Hakulinen, Auli (2009) Alternative responses to assessments. In Sidnell, Jack, ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stainton, Robert (2006) Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob and Heinemann, Trine (2013) When ‘yes’ is not enough – as an answer to a yes–no question. In Szczepek-Reed, Beatrice and Raymond, Geoffrey, eds., Units of Talk-Units of Action, pp. 207–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob and Heinemann, Trine (2014) The social and moral work of modal constructions in granting remote requests. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 145–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa (2011) Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 52 [www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de]Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa (2013) Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Ph.D. diss., University of Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa and Anssi, Peräkylä (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(3): 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2004) ‘No no no’ and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research 30(2): 260–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2005) Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language in Social Interaction 38(2):131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction. 41(1): 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2011) Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowing in Conversation, pp. 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Hayashi, Makoto (2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob (2011) Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The morality of knowledge in conversation, pp. 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen (2005) Contingent requests: Their sequential organization and turn shape. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2): 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen (2006) Request Sequences: The Intersection of Grammar, Interaction and Social Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, Alene Kiku (1976/2004) Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Lerner, Gene, ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Suzuki, Ryoko (2014) Reenactments in conversation: Gaze and recipiency. Discourse Studies 16(6): 816–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael (2008) Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne (1996) On rhythm in everyday German conversation: Beat clashes in assessment utterances. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation, pp. 303–365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinkhuyzen, Erik and Szymanski, Margaret H. (2005) ‘Would you like to do it yourself?’ Service requests and their non-granting responses. In Richards, Keith and Seedhouse, Paul, eds., Applying Conversation Analysis, pp. 91–106. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Traci, Drew, Paul, and Local, John (2011) Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2434–2451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Elizabeth G. (1993) Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Bill and Peppe, Sue (1996) Ending up in Ulster: prosody and turn-taking in English dialects. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation, pp. 101–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. (2011) Some uses of head nods in ‘third position’ in talk-in-interaction. Gesture 11(2): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue and Kitzinger, Celia (2006) Surprise as an interactional achievement: reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2): 150–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Susanne (2005) Ellipsis and Focus in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1958) Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. (1981) Two request forms of four year olds. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 511–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. (2005) Interactional and sequential features informing request format selection in children’s speech. In Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret, eds., Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, pp. 185–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison (2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg and Ogiermann, Eva (2011) How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (‘one needs to x’). Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(3): 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg and Ogiermann, Eva (2013) Responsibility and action: Invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(3): 256–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×