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: 2024-12-25T19:08:05.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Edited by
N. J. Enfield  and
Tanya Stivers
N. J. Enfield
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands
Tanya Stivers
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands
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
Person Reference in Interaction
Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives
 , pp. 338 - 352
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

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

Abdel Rahman, R. and Sommer, W. O. E. 2004, ‘I recognize your face but I can't remember your name: A question of expertise?’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A: 819–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aceto, M. 2002, ‘Ethnic personal names and multiple identities in Anglophone Caribbean speech communities in Latin America’, Language in Society, 31(4): 577–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. 1987, Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1988, ‘Referring and accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics, 24: 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1990, Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. 1990, Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London / New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Armstrong, W. H. 1928, Rossel Island. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) 1984, Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, J. C. P. 1984, Referential Problems in Conversation (Occasional Paper No. 13). Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Belin, P., Zatorre, R. J. and Ahad, P. 2002, ‘Human temporal-lobe response to vocal sounds’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 13: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird-David, N. 1995, ‘Hunter-gatherers’ kinship organization’, in Goody, E. (ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction, pp. 68–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, M. 1971, ‘The moral and tactical meaning of kinship terms’, Man (New Series), 6: 79–87.Google Scholar
Bodenhorn, B. and vom Bruch, G. (eds.) 2006, An Anthropology of Names and Naming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. 2005, The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brédart, S., Valentine, T., Calder, A. and Gassi, L. 1995, ‘An interactive activation model of face naming’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A: 466–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brédart, S., Brennen, T. and Valentine, T. 1997, ‘Dissociations between the processing of proper names and common names’, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14: 209–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brédart, S., Brennen, T., Delchambre, M., McNeill, A. and Burton, A. M. 2005, ‘Naming very familiar people: When retrieving names is faster than retrieving semantic biographical information’, British Journal of Psychology, 96: 205–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, T., Baguley, T., Bright, J. and Bruce, V. 1990, ‘Resolving semantically induced tip-of-the tongue states for proper nouns’, Memory and Cognition, 18: 339–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricker, V. R. 1970, ‘Relationship terms with the usative suffix in Tzotzil and Yucatec Maya’, Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, pp. 75–86. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Brown, P. 1998, ‘Conversational structure and language acquisition: The role of repetition in Tzeltal adult and child speech’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8(2): 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. 1958, ‘How shall a thing be called?’, Psychological Review, 65: 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Ford, M. 1964, ‘Address in American English’, in Hymes, D. (eds.), Language in Culture and Society, pp. 234–44. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960, ‘The pronouns of power and solidarity’, in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language, pp. 253–76. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, V. and Young, A. W. 1986, ‘Understanding face recognition’, British Journal of Psychology, 77: 305–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S. and Wade, E. 1991, ‘On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults?’, Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 542–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, A. M. and Bruce, V. 1992, ‘I recognize your face but I can't remember your name: A simple explanation?’, British Journal of Psychology, 83: 45–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Button, G. 1987, ‘Moving out of closings’, in Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 101–51. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cancian, F. 1965, Economics and Prestige in a Maya Community: The Religious Cargo System in Zinacantan. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Capell, A. 1976, ‘General picture of Austronesian languages, New Guinea area’, in Wurm, S. A. (ed.), Austronesian Languages – New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study. Vol. 2. Pacific Linguistics Series C-39, pp. 5–52. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1980, ‘The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative’, in Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, pp. 9–50. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994, Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chang, S.-J. 1978, ‘Anaphora in Korean’, in Hinds, J. (ed.), Linguistic Research, pp. 223–78. Edmonton, AB: Linguistic Research Inc.Google Scholar
Chen, J. and Stivers, T. 2005, ‘Working paper on non-recognitional person reference in English and Mandarin’, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. 1980, ‘Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse’, in Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, pp.–127–201. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1992, Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996, Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. 2005, ‘Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential’, MS, Colchester, Essex: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Collier, G. A. and Bricker, V. R. 1970, ‘Nicknames and social structure in Zinacantan’, American Anthropologist, 72: 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1996, ‘Markedness’, in Verschuren, J., Östman, J.-O., Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, J. R. 1968, Pronominal Reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Alan Cruse, D. 2004, Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, S. 1995, ‘Agent position in the Sejarah Melayu’, in Downing, P. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Word Order in Discourse, pp. 51–83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. 1984, ‘Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 102–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, J.1990, ‘Modifications of invitations, offers and rejections’, in Psathas, G. (ed.), Interaction Competence, pp. 149–80. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 1999, Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. 1980, The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Downing, P. 1996, ‘Proper names as a referential option in English conversation’, in Fox, B. (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 95–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. 1997, “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 28: 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. 2002, ‘Out of context: An intersection between domestic life and the workplace, as contexts for (business) talk’, Language & Communication, 22: 477–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P.2006, ‘Mis-alignments in “after-hours” calls to a British GP's practice: A study in telephone medicine’, in Heritage, J. and Maynard, D. W. (eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. and Holt, E. 1995, ‘Idiomatic expressions and their role in the organization of topic transition in conversation’, in Everaert, M., Vn der Linden, E.-J., Schenk, A. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 117–32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Holt, E. 1998, ‘Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation’, Language in Society, 27: 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A. 1984, ‘The social meaning of subject pronouns in Italian conversation’, Text, 4: 277–311.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. 2000, ‘Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33: 347–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1984, Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens. Grundriß der Humanethologie. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1989. Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. and Senft, G. 1987, Studienbrief ‘Rituelle Kommunikation’. Hagen: Fernuniversität – Gesamthochschule, Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. 2002, Language, Cognition and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2000, ‘The theory of cultural logic: How individuals combine social intelligence with semiotics to create and maintain cultural meaning’, Cultural Dynamics, 12(1): 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2002, ‘Ethnosyntax: Introduction’, in Enfield, N. J. (ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Culture and Grammar, pp. 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2003, ‘Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis’, Language, 79(1): 82–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2004, ‘Nominal classification in Lao: A sketch’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 57(2/3): 117–43.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2005, ‘The body as a cognitive artifact in kinship representations. Hand gesture diagrams by speakers of Lao’, Current Anthropology, 46(1): 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2006a, ‘Social consequences of common ground’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 399–430. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2006b, ‘Code, context, and cognition in the Lao pronoun system: Under the hood of social deixis’, typescript, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Kita, S. and Ruiter, J. P. 2005, ‘Primary and secondary pragmatic functions of pointing gestures’, typescript, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) 2006, Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1986 [1972], ‘On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurence’, in Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp. 150–213. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (n.d.), ‘Naming’, MS, University of Melbourne.
Evans, N. 1999, Laos: Culture and Society. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 2002, A Short History of Laos: The Land in Between. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 2003, ‘Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 32: 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farriss, N. M. 1984, Maya Society Under Colonial Rule, The Collective Enterprise of Survival. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. 1992, ‘The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations’, Psychological Review, 99(4): 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, C. A., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. 2002, ‘Constituency and the grammar of turn increments’, in Ford, C. A., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 14–38. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. 1987, Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, R. 1967, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gair, J. W. 1988, ‘Kinds of markedness’, in Flynn, S. and O’Neil, W. (eds.), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 225–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garde, M. 2003, ‘Social deixis in Bininj Kun-wok conversation’, D.Phil., diss., University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gergely, G. and Gergely C. 2006, ‘Sylvia's recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. and The ABC Research Group 1999, Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1990, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1993, English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godard, D. 1977, ‘Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States’, Language in Society, 6: 209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goethe, J. W. 1795, ‘Das Mädchen von Oberkirch’, in Beutler, E. (ed.), 1949, Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Sämtliche Werke. Artemis-Gedenkausgabe zu Goethes 200. Geburtstag. Band 6. Die Weimarer Dramen, pp. 759–68. Zürich: Artemis-Verlag.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974, Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1979, ‘Footing’, Semiotica, 25: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1981, Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W. H. 1965, ‘Personal names and modes of address in two Oceanic societies’, in Spiro, Melford E. (ed.), Context and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology, pp. 265–76. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1986, ‘Audience diversity, participation and interpretation’, Text, 6: 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1987, ‘Forgetfulness as an interactive resource’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2): 115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975, ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1989, ‘Givenness, implicature, and demonstrative expressions in English discourse’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 25(2): 89–103.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1993, ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse’. Language, 69(2): 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacohen, G. and Schegloff, E. A. 2006, ‘On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 1305–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K and Hasan, R. 1976, Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar
Han, H.-J. 1996, ‘Korean caki as a reflexive and a bound pronoun’, Master's thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. 1990, Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space Among the Maya. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. 2005, ‘Explorations in the deictic field’, Current Anthropology, 46(2): 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, J. R. and Cowell, E. S. 1988, ‘The effects of different types of retrieval cues on the recall of names of famous faces’, Memory and Cognition, 16: 545–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haspelmath, M. 2006, ‘Against markedness (and what to replace it with)’, Journal of Linguistics, 42(1): 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J. 1977, Gossip, Reputation and Knowledge in Zinacantan. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. 1993, ‘Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 3: 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J. 2005, ‘“Whorish Old Man” and “One (Animal) Gentleman”: The intertextual construction of enemies and selves’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1): 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J.2006, ‘Documenting lexical knowledge’, in Himmelmann, N. and Gippert, J. (eds.), Language Documentation, pp. 129–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Havránek, B. 1964 (1932), ‘The functional differentiation of the standard language’, in Garvin, P. L. (eds.), A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style, pp. 3–16. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, D. C., Young, A. W. and Ellis, A. W. 1991, ‘Routes through the face recognition system’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A: 761–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. 2005, ‘Referential problems and turn construction: An exploration of an intersection between grammar and interaction’, Text, 25(4): 437–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T. 2005, ‘Where grammar and interaction meet: The preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish’, in Hakulinen, A. and Selting, M. (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, pp. 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984a, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J.1984b, ‘A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 299–345. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 2002a, ‘The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1427–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.2002b, ’Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement’, in Ford, C., Fox, B., and Thompson, S. (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Atkinson, J. M. 1984, ‘Introduction’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. 2005, ‘The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1): 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. 1996, ‘Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses’, in Fox, B. (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 205–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1960, ‘The origin of speech’, Scientific American, 203: 5–12.Google Scholar
Holt, E. and Drew, P. 2005, ‘Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38: 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, K-S. 1987, ‘Discourse binding of the Korean reflexive caki’, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 2: 196–208.Google Scholar
Hopper, R. 1992, Telephone Conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, R. and Chen, C. 1996, ‘Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone openings in Taiwan’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29: 291–313.Google Scholar
Hopper, R., Doany, N., Johnson, M. and Drummond, K. 1991, ‘Universals and particulars in telephone openings’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24: 369–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, R. and Koleilat-Doany, N. 1989, ‘Telephone openings and conversational universals: A study in three languages’, in Ting-Toomey, S. and Kevizing, F. (eds.), Language, Communication and Culture, pp. 157–79. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. 1991, ‘Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations’, in Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, pp. 232–50. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. 2000, Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ide, S. 1989, ‘Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness’, Multilingua, 8(2/3): 223–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ide, S.2005, ‘How and why honorifics can signify dignity and elegance: The indexicality and reflexivity of linguistic rituals’, in Lakoff, R. and Ide, S. (eds.), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness, pp. 45–64 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1957, The Framework of Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1983, ‘Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset’, in D’Urso, V. and Leonardi, P. (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, pp. 11–38. Padua: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.1984, ‘On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 191–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1986, ‘Notes on “Latency” in Overlap Onset’, Human Studies, 9: 153–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.1987, ‘On embedded and exposed correction in conversation’, in Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and Social Organization, pp. 86–100. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1988, ‘On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation’, Social Problems, 35(4): 418–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. A. and Bruce, V. 1990, ‘Lost properties? Retrieval differences between name codes and semantic codes for familiar people’, Psychological Research, 52: 62–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamio, A. 1997, Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, B.-M. 1988, ‘Functional inheritance, anaphora, and semantic interpretation in a generalized categorial grammar’, D.Phil., diss., Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Keesing, R. M. 1975, Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 1988, Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. M., da Costa, P. A., Leigh, A. E., Hinton, M. R. and Peirce, J. W. 2001, ‘Sheep don't forget a face’, Nature, 414: 165–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, H. 1989, ‘Nominal reference in discourse: Introducing and tracking referents in Korean spoken narratives’, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 3: 431–44.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-R. 1992, ‘Korean pronouns caki and ku: The grammatical distinction between selective and unselective binding’, Master's thesis, University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
Kim, W.-H. 1994, ‘Grammatical relations and anaphora in Korean’, D.Phil., diss., University of Colorado. Boulder: Colorado.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. 1979, ‘Deixis in discourse: An exploratory quantitative study of the modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 355–75. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. 2005, ‘Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3): 221–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2005, ‘The semiotic stance’, Semiotica, 157(1/4): 233–304.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1972, Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1974, ‘Remarks on ‘this’ and ‘that’’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 10: 345–56.Google Scholar
Land, V. and Kitzinger, C. 2005, ‘Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4): 371–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leach, J. W. and Leach, E. R (eds.) 1983, The Kula – New Perspectives on Massim Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, C. 1973, ‘Abstract syntax of Korean with reference to English’, D.Phil., diss., Indiana University. Bloomington.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1987, ‘Minimization and conversational inference’, in Pappi, M. and Verschueren, J. (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective, pp. 61–129. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2000, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA and London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2003, Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2005, ‘Living with Manny dangerous idea’, Discourse Studies, 7: 431–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2005a, Manny Schegloff's dangerous idea. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 431–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2006a, ‘Matrilineal clans and kin terms on Rossel island’, Anthropological Linguistics 48(1): 1–43.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.2006b, ‘On the human “interactional engine”’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Cognition, Culture, and Interaction, pp. 39–69. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2006c, Parts of the body in Yélî Dnye, the Pauan language of Rossel Island. Language Science, 28: 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.in press, ‘Landscape, seascape and the ontology of places on Rossel Island, Papua New Guinea’, Language Sciences.
Levinson, S. C. and Brown, P. 2004, ‘Comparative feedback: Cultural shaping of response systems in interaction’, paper presented at the Workshop on Feedback in Interaction, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966, The Savage Mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969, The Elementary Structures of Kinship (2nd edition). London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 2003, Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linde, C. 1979, ‘Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics (12): Discourse and Syntax, pp. 337–54. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, A. B. (1994). Identification and Recogition in Swedish Telephone conversation openings. Language in Society, 23(2), 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G. 1965, ‘Another view of the Trobriand kinship categories’, in Hammel, E. A. (ed.), Formal Semantic Analysis. American Anthropologist Special Publication 4 (67), part 2, pp. 142–85. Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G.1969, ‘A formal account of the Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies’, in Tyler, S. (ed.), Cognitive Anthropology, pp. 212–55. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. 1992, Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, P. (ed.) 1997, Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Luke, K. K. and Pavlidou, T.-S. (eds.) 2002, Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luong, H. V. 1984, ‘“Brother” and “Uncle”: An analyis of rules, structural contradictions, and meaning in Vietnamese kinship’, American Anthropologist, 86: 290–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977, Semantics. Vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1995, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S. and Stich, S. 2004, ‘Semantics, cross cultural style’, Cognition, 92 64: B1–B12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malinowski, B. 1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: George Routledge.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1929. The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Maybury-Lewis, D. 1984, ‘Name, person and ideology in central Brazil’, in Tooker, and Conklin, (eds.), Naming Systems: The 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, pp. 1–10. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Maylor, E. A. and Valentine, T. 1992, ‘Linear and non-linear effects of aging on categorizing and naming faces’, Psychology and Aging, 7: 217–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, N. 1980, ‘It's not who you are but how you give that counts: The role of exchange in a Melanesian society’, American Ethnologist, 7: 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWeeny, K. H., Young, A. W., Hay, D. C. and Ellis, A. W. 1987, ‘Putting names to faces’, British Journal of Psychology, 78: 143–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1934, Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. and Quinto-Pozos, D. (eds.) 2002. Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, M., Walker, J. A., Sidnell, J. ‘Varieties of English on Bequia (St Vincent & Grenadines): A social and linguistic overview’, University of Edinburgh Unpublished manuscript, MS, 46 pages.
Milders, M., Deelman, B. and Berg, I. 1999, ‘Retrieving familiar people's names in patients with severe closed-head injuries’, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21: 171–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mithun, M. 1984, ‘Principles of naming in Mohawk’, in Tooker, E. and Conklin, H. C. (eds.), The 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society: Naming Systems, pp. 40–54. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. and Dunbar, R. 1997, ‘Social markers and the evolution of reciprocal exchange’, Current Anthropology, 38: 93–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimura, T. and Hayashi, B. 1994, ‘English and Japanese demonstratives: A contrastive analysis of second language acquisition’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(2): 329–51.Google Scholar
Nimura, T. and Hayashi, B. 1996, ‘Contrastive analysis of English and Japanese demonstratives from the perspective of L1 and L2 acquisition’, Language Sciences, 18: 811–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, C. 1996, ‘Demonstratives in academic written English discourse’, Master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1984, ‘Clarification and culture’, in Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Georgetown University Round Table in Languages and Linguistics, pp. 325–41. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Oh, S.-Y. 2001, ‘A focus-based study of English demonstrative reference’, Journal of English Linguistics, 29: 124–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, S.-Y. 2002, ‘Referring to people in Korean and English’, D.Phil., diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Oh, S.-Y.Forthcoming, ‘Overt reference to speaker and recipitent in Korean,’ Discourse Studies.
Otterbein, K. F. 1964, ‘Principles governing the usage of in-law terminology on Andros Island, Bahamas’, Man Ser. 1, 64: pp. 54–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Y.-Y. 1997, ‘A cross-linguistic study of the use of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation’, D.Phil., diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Parkin, R. 1997, Kinship: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parkin, R. and Stone, L. (eds.). 2004, Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1965/1932, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Volume II, Elements of Logic). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Persson, J. 1999, Sagali and the Kula. A Regional Systems Analysis of the Massim. Lund Monographs in Social Anthropology. Lund: Department of Sociology, Lund University.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1980, ‘Telling my side: “Limited Access” as a “Fishing’ Device”, Sociological Inquiry, 50: 186–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M.1984, ‘Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1986, ‘Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims’, Human Studies, 9: 219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, R. and Price, S. 1972, ‘Saramaka onomastics: An Afro-American naming system’, Ethnology, 4: 341–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975, Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Mind, Language, and Reality, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redfield, R. and Villa Rojas, A. 1962, Chan Kom, A Maya Village. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ree, J. J. 1975, Demonstratives and number in Korean. In Sohn, H. M. (ed.), The Korean Language: Its structure and social projection, pp. 33–46. Hawaii: Center for Korean Studies.Google Scholar
Rehbein, B. 2004, Globalisierung in Laos. Münster and Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J. and Boyd, R. 2005, Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. 2006, ‘Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational Repair’, Communication Monographs, 73: 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosaldo, M. Z. 1982, ‘The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy’, Language in Society, 11: 203–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M. D. 1988, Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian Languages of Western Melanesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sacks H. 1995, Lectures on Conversation, ed. Jefferson, G.. Voulmes 1 and 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H.1970, ‘Doing “being ordinary”. Lecture 1, Spring 1970’, in Sacks (1992), pp. 215–21.
Sacks, H.1972, Unpublished class lectures.
Sacks, H.1972a, ‘An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology’, in Sudnow, D. N. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 31–74. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H.1972b, ‘On the analyzability of stories by children’, in Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp. 325–45. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sacks, H.([1973]1987). ‘On the perferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation’, in Button, G, and Lee, J. R. E.. (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1992, ‘Doing “being ordinary” ’ Lectures on Conversation Vol.2 (Fall 1968–Spring 1972). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. A. 1979, ‘Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction’, in Psathas, G. (eds.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. 1974, ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation’, Language, 50: 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1968, ‘Sequencing in conversational openings’, American Anthropologist, 70(6): 1075–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1972, ‘Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place’, in Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 75–119. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1979a, ‘Identification and recognition in telephone openings’, in Psathas, G. (eds.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 23–78. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1979b, ‘The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 261–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1980, ‘Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question”’, Sociological Inquiry, 50: 104–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1984, ‘On some gestures’ relation to talk’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 266–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1986, ‘The routine as achievement’, Human Studies, 9: 111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988, Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1): 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992, ‘Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation’, American Journal of Sociology, 95(5): 1295–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1996a, ‘Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics’, in Fox, B. (eds.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 437–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996b. ‘Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action’, American Journal of Sociology, 102: 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1997, ‘Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair’, Discourse Processes, 23: 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2000a, ‘When “others” initiate repair’, Applied Linguistics, 21(2): 205–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2000b, ‘Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation’, Language in Society, 29(1): 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2001, ‘Increments’. Forum Lecture, LSA Linguistic Institute, Santa Barbara, July 2001.
Schegloff, E. A.2002 [1970], ‘Opening sequencing’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 321–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2002a, ‘On ‘opening sequencing’: An introductory note’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 321–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2002b, ‘Beginnings in the telephone’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 284–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2002c, ‘Reflections on research on telephone conversation: Issues of cross-cultural scope and scholarly exchange, interactional import and consequences’, in Luke, K. K. and Pavlidou, T. S. (eds.), Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures, pp. 249–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2004 [1970], ‘Answering the phone’, in Lerner, G. H. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, pp. 63–107. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2005, ‘On complainability’, Social Problems, 52(4): 449–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2006a, ‘Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted’, in Enfield, N. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Cognition, Culture, and Interaction, pp 70–96, Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2006b, A Primer for Conversation Analysis: Sequence Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. 1973, ‘Opening up closings’, Semiotica 7: 289–327.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. 1977, ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’, Language 53: 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweinberger, S. R., Burton, A. M. and Kelly, S. W. 2001, ‘Priming the access to names of famous faces’, British Journal of Psychology, 92: 303–07.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, J. R. 1997 [1958], ‘Proper names’, in Ludlow, P. (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language, pp. 585–92. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Selting, M. 1996, ‘Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation’, in Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (eds.), Prosody in Conversation, pp. 231–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. 1985, ‘Trauer auf Trobriand-eine ethnologisch/linguistische Fallstudie’, Anthropos, 80: 471–92.Google Scholar
Senft, G. 1986, Kilivila – The Language of the Trobriand Islanders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. 1996, Classificatory Particles in Kilivila. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Senft, G.1999, ‘Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski’, in Verschueren, J., Östman, J. O., and Blommaert, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Supplement 1998. 20 pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G.2004, ‘Aspects of spatial deixis in Kilivila’, in Senft, G. (ed.), Deixis and Demonstratives in Oceanic languages, pp. 59–80. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Senft, G. 2006, The Trobriand Islanders ways of speaking. Nijmegen: Mimeo.Google Scholar
Senft, G.in press, ‘Ich Weiβ nicht, was soll es bedeuten…’. Ethndinguistische Winke Zur Rolle von umfasseden Metadaten beider Arbeit mit Corpora. ‘In Sprachcorpona – Datenmengen und Exkennthisfortschritt. Jauhrbuch des Instituts für deutscne Sprache 2006. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Sergent, J., Ohta, S. and MacDonald, B. 1992, ‘Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 115: 15–36.Google ScholarPubMed
Shanker, S. 2001, ‘What children know when they know what a name is: The Non-Cartesian view of language acquisition’, Current Anthropology, 42(4): 481–514.Google Scholar
Sherzer, J. 1983, Kuna Ways of Speaking. An Ethnographic Perspective. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2004, ‘There's risks in everything: Extreme-case formulations and accountability in inquiry’, Discourse and Society, 15: 745–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2005, ‘Gesture in the pursuit and display of recognition: A Caribbean case study’, Semiotica, 156(1/4): 55–87.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J.2001, ‘Rules and situated conduct: Wittgenstein's late writings and the problem of ethnographic description’, MS, 16 pages. Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University.
Sidner, C. L. 1983, ‘Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora’, in Brady, M. and Berwick, R. C. (eds.), Computational Models of Discourse, pp. 267–330. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. 2004, Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976, ‘Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description’, in Basso, K. and Selby, H. (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology, pp. 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 2004, ‘“Cultural” concepts and the language-culture nexus’, Current Anthropology, 45(5): 621–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M.2005, ‘The ethics of the archive in the politics of “cultural heritage”’, MS, 30 pages.
Simon, H. A. 1990, ‘A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism’, Science, 250: 1665–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sohn, H.-M. 1999, The Korean language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995, Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. 2005a, ‘Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2): 131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.2005b, ‘Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: Nodding as a token of preliminary affiliation’, unpublished paper, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Strauss, S. 1993, ‘Why “this” and “that” are not complete without “it’”, in Beals, K., Cooke, G., Kathman, D., McCullouoh, K. E., Kita, S. and Testen, D. (eds.), CLS 29: Papers From the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 403–17. Chicago: The Society.Google Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 2002, ‘A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and non-native speakers’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1807–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taub, S. F. 2001, Language in the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A. K. 2004 (1976), ‘Pre-announcement sequences in conversation’, in Lerner, G. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Toennies, F. 1961, ‘Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft’, in Parsons, T., Shils, E., Naegele, K. D. and Pitts, J. R. (eds.), Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory, pp. 191–201. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Tooker, E. and Conklin, H. C. (eds.) 1984, Naming Systems: 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Valentine, T., Brennan, T. and Brédart, S. 1996, The Cognitive Psychology of Proper Names. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Meer, R. K., Breed, M., Espelie, K. and Winston, M. (eds.) 1998, Pheromone Communication in Social Insects. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Villa Rojas, A. 1978, ‘Los Elegidos de Dios: Etnografía de los Mayas de Quintana Roo’, Séria de Antropología Social, 56. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.Google Scholar
Kriegstein, K., Eger, E., Kleinschmidt, A. and Giraud, A. L. 2003, ‘Modulation of neural responses to speech by directing attention to voices or verbal content’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 17: 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriegstein, K., Kleinschmidt, A., Sterzer, P. and Giraud, A.-L. 2005, ‘Interaction of face and voice areas during speaker recognition’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17: 367–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, A. B. 1976, Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. 1956, Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1992, Semantics, Culture, and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. J. 1973, Crab Antics: The Social Anthropology of English-speaking Negro Societies of the Caribbean. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953, Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wong, J. 2000, ‘Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation’, Applied Linguistics, 21(2): 244–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, M. 1971, Fighting with Food. Leadership, Values and Social Control in a Massim Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Young, M. 2004, Malinowski – Odyssee of an Anthropologist 1884–1920. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Young, A. W., Mc Weeny, K. H., Ellis, A. W. and Hay, D. C. 1986, ‘Naming and categorizing faces and names’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A: 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitlyn, D. 1993, ‘Reconstructing kinship or the pragmatics of kin talk’, Man, 28: 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1949, Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. 1978, ‘On markedness in morphology’, Die Sprache, 24: 129–43.Google Scholar
Abdel Rahman, R. and Sommer, W. O. E. 2004, ‘I recognize your face but I can't remember your name: A question of expertise?’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A: 819–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aceto, M. 2002, ‘Ethnic personal names and multiple identities in Anglophone Caribbean speech communities in Latin America’, Language in Society, 31(4): 577–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. 1987, Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1988, ‘Referring and accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics, 24: 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1990, Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. 1990, Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London / New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Armstrong, W. H. 1928, Rossel Island. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) 1984, Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, J. C. P. 1984, Referential Problems in Conversation (Occasional Paper No. 13). Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Belin, P., Zatorre, R. J. and Ahad, P. 2002, ‘Human temporal-lobe response to vocal sounds’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 13: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird-David, N. 1995, ‘Hunter-gatherers’ kinship organization’, in Goody, E. (ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction, pp. 68–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, M. 1971, ‘The moral and tactical meaning of kinship terms’, Man (New Series), 6: 79–87.Google Scholar
Bodenhorn, B. and vom Bruch, G. (eds.) 2006, An Anthropology of Names and Naming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. 2005, The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brédart, S., Valentine, T., Calder, A. and Gassi, L. 1995, ‘An interactive activation model of face naming’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A: 466–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brédart, S., Brennen, T. and Valentine, T. 1997, ‘Dissociations between the processing of proper names and common names’, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14: 209–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brédart, S., Brennen, T., Delchambre, M., McNeill, A. and Burton, A. M. 2005, ‘Naming very familiar people: When retrieving names is faster than retrieving semantic biographical information’, British Journal of Psychology, 96: 205–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, T., Baguley, T., Bright, J. and Bruce, V. 1990, ‘Resolving semantically induced tip-of-the tongue states for proper nouns’, Memory and Cognition, 18: 339–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricker, V. R. 1970, ‘Relationship terms with the usative suffix in Tzotzil and Yucatec Maya’, Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, pp. 75–86. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Brown, P. 1998, ‘Conversational structure and language acquisition: The role of repetition in Tzeltal adult and child speech’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8(2): 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. 1958, ‘How shall a thing be called?’, Psychological Review, 65: 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Ford, M. 1964, ‘Address in American English’, in Hymes, D. (eds.), Language in Culture and Society, pp. 234–44. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960, ‘The pronouns of power and solidarity’, in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language, pp. 253–76. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, V. and Young, A. W. 1986, ‘Understanding face recognition’, British Journal of Psychology, 77: 305–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S. and Wade, E. 1991, ‘On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults?’, Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 542–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, A. M. and Bruce, V. 1992, ‘I recognize your face but I can't remember your name: A simple explanation?’, British Journal of Psychology, 83: 45–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Button, G. 1987, ‘Moving out of closings’, in Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 101–51. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cancian, F. 1965, Economics and Prestige in a Maya Community: The Religious Cargo System in Zinacantan. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Capell, A. 1976, ‘General picture of Austronesian languages, New Guinea area’, in Wurm, S. A. (ed.), Austronesian Languages – New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study. Vol. 2. Pacific Linguistics Series C-39, pp. 5–52. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1980, ‘The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative’, in Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, pp. 9–50. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994, Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chang, S.-J. 1978, ‘Anaphora in Korean’, in Hinds, J. (ed.), Linguistic Research, pp. 223–78. Edmonton, AB: Linguistic Research Inc.Google Scholar
Chen, J. and Stivers, T. 2005, ‘Working paper on non-recognitional person reference in English and Mandarin’, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. 1980, ‘Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse’, in Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, pp.–127–201. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1992, Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996, Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. 2005, ‘Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential’, MS, Colchester, Essex: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Collier, G. A. and Bricker, V. R. 1970, ‘Nicknames and social structure in Zinacantan’, American Anthropologist, 72: 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1996, ‘Markedness’, in Verschuren, J., Östman, J.-O., Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, J. R. 1968, Pronominal Reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Alan Cruse, D. 2004, Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, S. 1995, ‘Agent position in the Sejarah Melayu’, in Downing, P. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Word Order in Discourse, pp. 51–83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. 1984, ‘Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 102–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, J.1990, ‘Modifications of invitations, offers and rejections’, in Psathas, G. (ed.), Interaction Competence, pp. 149–80. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 1999, Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. 1980, The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Downing, P. 1996, ‘Proper names as a referential option in English conversation’, in Fox, B. (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 95–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. 1997, “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 28: 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. 2002, ‘Out of context: An intersection between domestic life and the workplace, as contexts for (business) talk’, Language & Communication, 22: 477–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P.2006, ‘Mis-alignments in “after-hours” calls to a British GP's practice: A study in telephone medicine’, in Heritage, J. and Maynard, D. W. (eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. and Holt, E. 1995, ‘Idiomatic expressions and their role in the organization of topic transition in conversation’, in Everaert, M., Vn der Linden, E.-J., Schenk, A. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 117–32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Holt, E. 1998, ‘Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation’, Language in Society, 27: 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A. 1984, ‘The social meaning of subject pronouns in Italian conversation’, Text, 4: 277–311.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. 2000, ‘Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33: 347–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1984, Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens. Grundriß der Humanethologie. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1989. Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. and Senft, G. 1987, Studienbrief ‘Rituelle Kommunikation’. Hagen: Fernuniversität – Gesamthochschule, Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. 2002, Language, Cognition and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2000, ‘The theory of cultural logic: How individuals combine social intelligence with semiotics to create and maintain cultural meaning’, Cultural Dynamics, 12(1): 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2002, ‘Ethnosyntax: Introduction’, in Enfield, N. J. (ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Culture and Grammar, pp. 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2003, ‘Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis’, Language, 79(1): 82–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2004, ‘Nominal classification in Lao: A sketch’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 57(2/3): 117–43.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2005, ‘The body as a cognitive artifact in kinship representations. Hand gesture diagrams by speakers of Lao’, Current Anthropology, 46(1): 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2006a, ‘Social consequences of common ground’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 399–430. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.,2006b, ‘Code, context, and cognition in the Lao pronoun system: Under the hood of social deixis’, typescript, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Kita, S. and Ruiter, J. P. 2005, ‘Primary and secondary pragmatic functions of pointing gestures’, typescript, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) 2006, Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1986 [1972], ‘On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurence’, in Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp. 150–213. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (n.d.), ‘Naming’, MS, University of Melbourne.
Evans, N. 1999, Laos: Culture and Society. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 2002, A Short History of Laos: The Land in Between. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 2003, ‘Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 32: 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farriss, N. M. 1984, Maya Society Under Colonial Rule, The Collective Enterprise of Survival. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. 1992, ‘The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations’, Psychological Review, 99(4): 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, C. A., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. 2002, ‘Constituency and the grammar of turn increments’, in Ford, C. A., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 14–38. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. 1987, Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, R. 1967, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gair, J. W. 1988, ‘Kinds of markedness’, in Flynn, S. and O’Neil, W. (eds.), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 225–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garde, M. 2003, ‘Social deixis in Bininj Kun-wok conversation’, D.Phil., diss., University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gergely, G. and Gergely C. 2006, ‘Sylvia's recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. and The ABC Research Group 1999, Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1990, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1993, English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godard, D. 1977, ‘Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States’, Language in Society, 6: 209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goethe, J. W. 1795, ‘Das Mädchen von Oberkirch’, in Beutler, E. (ed.), 1949, Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Sämtliche Werke. Artemis-Gedenkausgabe zu Goethes 200. Geburtstag. Band 6. Die Weimarer Dramen, pp. 759–68. Zürich: Artemis-Verlag.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974, Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1979, ‘Footing’, Semiotica, 25: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1981, Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W. H. 1965, ‘Personal names and modes of address in two Oceanic societies’, in Spiro, Melford E. (ed.), Context and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology, pp. 265–76. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1986, ‘Audience diversity, participation and interpretation’, Text, 6: 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1987, ‘Forgetfulness as an interactive resource’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2): 115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975, ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1989, ‘Givenness, implicature, and demonstrative expressions in English discourse’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 25(2): 89–103.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1993, ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse’. Language, 69(2): 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacohen, G. and Schegloff, E. A. 2006, ‘On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 1305–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K and Hasan, R. 1976, Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar
Han, H.-J. 1996, ‘Korean caki as a reflexive and a bound pronoun’, Master's thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. 1990, Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space Among the Maya. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. 2005, ‘Explorations in the deictic field’, Current Anthropology, 46(2): 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, J. R. and Cowell, E. S. 1988, ‘The effects of different types of retrieval cues on the recall of names of famous faces’, Memory and Cognition, 16: 545–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haspelmath, M. 2006, ‘Against markedness (and what to replace it with)’, Journal of Linguistics, 42(1): 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J. 1977, Gossip, Reputation and Knowledge in Zinacantan. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. 1993, ‘Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 3: 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J. 2005, ‘“Whorish Old Man” and “One (Animal) Gentleman”: The intertextual construction of enemies and selves’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1): 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J.2006, ‘Documenting lexical knowledge’, in Himmelmann, N. and Gippert, J. (eds.), Language Documentation, pp. 129–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Havránek, B. 1964 (1932), ‘The functional differentiation of the standard language’, in Garvin, P. L. (eds.), A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style, pp. 3–16. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, D. C., Young, A. W. and Ellis, A. W. 1991, ‘Routes through the face recognition system’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A: 761–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. 2005, ‘Referential problems and turn construction: An exploration of an intersection between grammar and interaction’, Text, 25(4): 437–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T. 2005, ‘Where grammar and interaction meet: The preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish’, in Hakulinen, A. and Selting, M. (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, pp. 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984a, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J.1984b, ‘A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 299–345. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 2002a, ‘The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1427–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.2002b, ’Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement’, in Ford, C., Fox, B., and Thompson, S. (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Atkinson, J. M. 1984, ‘Introduction’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. 2005, ‘The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1): 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. 1996, ‘Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses’, in Fox, B. (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 205–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1960, ‘The origin of speech’, Scientific American, 203: 5–12.Google Scholar
Holt, E. and Drew, P. 2005, ‘Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38: 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, K-S. 1987, ‘Discourse binding of the Korean reflexive caki’, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 2: 196–208.Google Scholar
Hopper, R. 1992, Telephone Conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, R. and Chen, C. 1996, ‘Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone openings in Taiwan’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29: 291–313.Google Scholar
Hopper, R., Doany, N., Johnson, M. and Drummond, K. 1991, ‘Universals and particulars in telephone openings’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24: 369–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, R. and Koleilat-Doany, N. 1989, ‘Telephone openings and conversational universals: A study in three languages’, in Ting-Toomey, S. and Kevizing, F. (eds.), Language, Communication and Culture, pp. 157–79. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. 1991, ‘Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations’, in Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, pp. 232–50. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. 2000, Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ide, S. 1989, ‘Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness’, Multilingua, 8(2/3): 223–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ide, S.2005, ‘How and why honorifics can signify dignity and elegance: The indexicality and reflexivity of linguistic rituals’, in Lakoff, R. and Ide, S. (eds.), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness, pp. 45–64 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1957, The Framework of Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1983, ‘Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset’, in D’Urso, V. and Leonardi, P. (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, pp. 11–38. Padua: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.1984, ‘On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 191–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1986, ‘Notes on “Latency” in Overlap Onset’, Human Studies, 9: 153–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.1987, ‘On embedded and exposed correction in conversation’, in Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and Social Organization, pp. 86–100. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1988, ‘On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation’, Social Problems, 35(4): 418–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. A. and Bruce, V. 1990, ‘Lost properties? Retrieval differences between name codes and semantic codes for familiar people’, Psychological Research, 52: 62–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamio, A. 1997, Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, B.-M. 1988, ‘Functional inheritance, anaphora, and semantic interpretation in a generalized categorial grammar’, D.Phil., diss., Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Keesing, R. M. 1975, Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 1988, Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. M., da Costa, P. A., Leigh, A. E., Hinton, M. R. and Peirce, J. W. 2001, ‘Sheep don't forget a face’, Nature, 414: 165–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, H. 1989, ‘Nominal reference in discourse: Introducing and tracking referents in Korean spoken narratives’, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 3: 431–44.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-R. 1992, ‘Korean pronouns caki and ku: The grammatical distinction between selective and unselective binding’, Master's thesis, University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
Kim, W.-H. 1994, ‘Grammatical relations and anaphora in Korean’, D.Phil., diss., University of Colorado. Boulder: Colorado.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. 1979, ‘Deixis in discourse: An exploratory quantitative study of the modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 355–75. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. 2005, ‘Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3): 221–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2005, ‘The semiotic stance’, Semiotica, 157(1/4): 233–304.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1972, Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1974, ‘Remarks on ‘this’ and ‘that’’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 10: 345–56.Google Scholar
Land, V. and Kitzinger, C. 2005, ‘Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4): 371–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leach, J. W. and Leach, E. R (eds.) 1983, The Kula – New Perspectives on Massim Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, C. 1973, ‘Abstract syntax of Korean with reference to English’, D.Phil., diss., Indiana University. Bloomington.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1987, ‘Minimization and conversational inference’, in Pappi, M. and Verschueren, J. (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective, pp. 61–129. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2000, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA and London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2003, Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2005, ‘Living with Manny dangerous idea’, Discourse Studies, 7: 431–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2005a, Manny Schegloff's dangerous idea. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 431–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2006a, ‘Matrilineal clans and kin terms on Rossel island’, Anthropological Linguistics 48(1): 1–43.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.2006b, ‘On the human “interactional engine”’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Cognition, Culture, and Interaction, pp. 39–69. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2006c, Parts of the body in Yélî Dnye, the Pauan language of Rossel Island. Language Science, 28: 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.in press, ‘Landscape, seascape and the ontology of places on Rossel Island, Papua New Guinea’, Language Sciences.
Levinson, S. C. and Brown, P. 2004, ‘Comparative feedback: Cultural shaping of response systems in interaction’, paper presented at the Workshop on Feedback in Interaction, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966, The Savage Mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969, The Elementary Structures of Kinship (2nd edition). London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 2003, Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linde, C. 1979, ‘Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics (12): Discourse and Syntax, pp. 337–54. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, A. B. (1994). Identification and Recogition in Swedish Telephone conversation openings. Language in Society, 23(2), 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G. 1965, ‘Another view of the Trobriand kinship categories’, in Hammel, E. A. (ed.), Formal Semantic Analysis. American Anthropologist Special Publication 4 (67), part 2, pp. 142–85. Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G.1969, ‘A formal account of the Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies’, in Tyler, S. (ed.), Cognitive Anthropology, pp. 212–55. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. 1992, Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, P. (ed.) 1997, Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Luke, K. K. and Pavlidou, T.-S. (eds.) 2002, Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luong, H. V. 1984, ‘“Brother” and “Uncle”: An analyis of rules, structural contradictions, and meaning in Vietnamese kinship’, American Anthropologist, 86: 290–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977, Semantics. Vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1995, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S. and Stich, S. 2004, ‘Semantics, cross cultural style’, Cognition, 92 64: B1–B12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malinowski, B. 1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: George Routledge.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1929. The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Maybury-Lewis, D. 1984, ‘Name, person and ideology in central Brazil’, in Tooker, and Conklin, (eds.), Naming Systems: The 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, pp. 1–10. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Maylor, E. A. and Valentine, T. 1992, ‘Linear and non-linear effects of aging on categorizing and naming faces’, Psychology and Aging, 7: 217–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, N. 1980, ‘It's not who you are but how you give that counts: The role of exchange in a Melanesian society’, American Ethnologist, 7: 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWeeny, K. H., Young, A. W., Hay, D. C. and Ellis, A. W. 1987, ‘Putting names to faces’, British Journal of Psychology, 78: 143–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1934, Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. and Quinto-Pozos, D. (eds.) 2002. Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, M., Walker, J. A., Sidnell, J. ‘Varieties of English on Bequia (St Vincent & Grenadines): A social and linguistic overview’, University of Edinburgh Unpublished manuscript, MS, 46 pages.
Milders, M., Deelman, B. and Berg, I. 1999, ‘Retrieving familiar people's names in patients with severe closed-head injuries’, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21: 171–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mithun, M. 1984, ‘Principles of naming in Mohawk’, in Tooker, E. and Conklin, H. C. (eds.), The 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society: Naming Systems, pp. 40–54. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. and Dunbar, R. 1997, ‘Social markers and the evolution of reciprocal exchange’, Current Anthropology, 38: 93–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimura, T. and Hayashi, B. 1994, ‘English and Japanese demonstratives: A contrastive analysis of second language acquisition’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(2): 329–51.Google Scholar
Nimura, T. and Hayashi, B. 1996, ‘Contrastive analysis of English and Japanese demonstratives from the perspective of L1 and L2 acquisition’, Language Sciences, 18: 811–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, C. 1996, ‘Demonstratives in academic written English discourse’, Master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1984, ‘Clarification and culture’, in Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Georgetown University Round Table in Languages and Linguistics, pp. 325–41. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Oh, S.-Y. 2001, ‘A focus-based study of English demonstrative reference’, Journal of English Linguistics, 29: 124–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, S.-Y. 2002, ‘Referring to people in Korean and English’, D.Phil., diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Oh, S.-Y.Forthcoming, ‘Overt reference to speaker and recipitent in Korean,’ Discourse Studies.
Otterbein, K. F. 1964, ‘Principles governing the usage of in-law terminology on Andros Island, Bahamas’, Man Ser. 1, 64: pp. 54–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Y.-Y. 1997, ‘A cross-linguistic study of the use of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation’, D.Phil., diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Parkin, R. 1997, Kinship: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parkin, R. and Stone, L. (eds.). 2004, Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1965/1932, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Volume II, Elements of Logic). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Persson, J. 1999, Sagali and the Kula. A Regional Systems Analysis of the Massim. Lund Monographs in Social Anthropology. Lund: Department of Sociology, Lund University.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1980, ‘Telling my side: “Limited Access” as a “Fishing’ Device”, Sociological Inquiry, 50: 186–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M.1984, ‘Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1986, ‘Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims’, Human Studies, 9: 219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, R. and Price, S. 1972, ‘Saramaka onomastics: An Afro-American naming system’, Ethnology, 4: 341–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975, Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Mind, Language, and Reality, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redfield, R. and Villa Rojas, A. 1962, Chan Kom, A Maya Village. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ree, J. J. 1975, Demonstratives and number in Korean. In Sohn, H. M. (ed.), The Korean Language: Its structure and social projection, pp. 33–46. Hawaii: Center for Korean Studies.Google Scholar
Rehbein, B. 2004, Globalisierung in Laos. Münster and Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J. and Boyd, R. 2005, Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. 2006, ‘Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational Repair’, Communication Monographs, 73: 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosaldo, M. Z. 1982, ‘The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy’, Language in Society, 11: 203–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M. D. 1988, Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian Languages of Western Melanesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sacks H. 1995, Lectures on Conversation, ed. Jefferson, G.. Voulmes 1 and 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H.1970, ‘Doing “being ordinary”. Lecture 1, Spring 1970’, in Sacks (1992), pp. 215–21.
Sacks, H.1972, Unpublished class lectures.
Sacks, H.1972a, ‘An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology’, in Sudnow, D. N. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 31–74. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H.1972b, ‘On the analyzability of stories by children’, in Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp. 325–45. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sacks, H.([1973]1987). ‘On the perferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation’, in Button, G, and Lee, J. R. E.. (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1992, ‘Doing “being ordinary” ’ Lectures on Conversation Vol.2 (Fall 1968–Spring 1972). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. A. 1979, ‘Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction’, in Psathas, G. (eds.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. 1974, ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation’, Language, 50: 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1968, ‘Sequencing in conversational openings’, American Anthropologist, 70(6): 1075–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1972, ‘Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place’, in Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 75–119. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1979a, ‘Identification and recognition in telephone openings’, in Psathas, G. (eds.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 23–78. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1979b, ‘The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 261–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1980, ‘Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question”’, Sociological Inquiry, 50: 104–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1984, ‘On some gestures’ relation to talk’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 266–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1986, ‘The routine as achievement’, Human Studies, 9: 111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988, Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1): 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992, ‘Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation’, American Journal of Sociology, 95(5): 1295–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.1996a, ‘Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics’, in Fox, B. (eds.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 437–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996b. ‘Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action’, American Journal of Sociology, 102: 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1997, ‘Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair’, Discourse Processes, 23: 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2000a, ‘When “others” initiate repair’, Applied Linguistics, 21(2): 205–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2000b, ‘Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation’, Language in Society, 29(1): 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2001, ‘Increments’. Forum Lecture, LSA Linguistic Institute, Santa Barbara, July 2001.
Schegloff, E. A.2002 [1970], ‘Opening sequencing’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 321–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2002a, ‘On ‘opening sequencing’: An introductory note’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 321–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2002b, ‘Beginnings in the telephone’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 284–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2002c, ‘Reflections on research on telephone conversation: Issues of cross-cultural scope and scholarly exchange, interactional import and consequences’, in Luke, K. K. and Pavlidou, T. S. (eds.), Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures, pp. 249–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2004 [1970], ‘Answering the phone’, in Lerner, G. H. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, pp. 63–107. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2005, ‘On complainability’, Social Problems, 52(4): 449–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2006a, ‘Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted’, in Enfield, N. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Cognition, Culture, and Interaction, pp 70–96, Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.2006b, A Primer for Conversation Analysis: Sequence Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. 1973, ‘Opening up closings’, Semiotica 7: 289–327.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. 1977, ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’, Language 53: 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweinberger, S. R., Burton, A. M. and Kelly, S. W. 2001, ‘Priming the access to names of famous faces’, British Journal of Psychology, 92: 303–07.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, J. R. 1997 [1958], ‘Proper names’, in Ludlow, P. (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language, pp. 585–92. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Selting, M. 1996, ‘Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation’, in Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (eds.), Prosody in Conversation, pp. 231–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. 1985, ‘Trauer auf Trobriand-eine ethnologisch/linguistische Fallstudie’, Anthropos, 80: 471–92.Google Scholar
Senft, G. 1986, Kilivila – The Language of the Trobriand Islanders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. 1996, Classificatory Particles in Kilivila. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Senft, G.1999, ‘Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski’, in Verschueren, J., Östman, J. O., and Blommaert, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Supplement 1998. 20 pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G.2004, ‘Aspects of spatial deixis in Kilivila’, in Senft, G. (ed.), Deixis and Demonstratives in Oceanic languages, pp. 59–80. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Senft, G. 2006, The Trobriand Islanders ways of speaking. Nijmegen: Mimeo.Google Scholar
Senft, G.in press, ‘Ich Weiβ nicht, was soll es bedeuten…’. Ethndinguistische Winke Zur Rolle von umfasseden Metadaten beider Arbeit mit Corpora. ‘In Sprachcorpona – Datenmengen und Exkennthisfortschritt. Jauhrbuch des Instituts für deutscne Sprache 2006. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Sergent, J., Ohta, S. and MacDonald, B. 1992, ‘Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 115: 15–36.Google ScholarPubMed
Shanker, S. 2001, ‘What children know when they know what a name is: The Non-Cartesian view of language acquisition’, Current Anthropology, 42(4): 481–514.Google Scholar
Sherzer, J. 1983, Kuna Ways of Speaking. An Ethnographic Perspective. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2004, ‘There's risks in everything: Extreme-case formulations and accountability in inquiry’, Discourse and Society, 15: 745–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2005, ‘Gesture in the pursuit and display of recognition: A Caribbean case study’, Semiotica, 156(1/4): 55–87.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J.2001, ‘Rules and situated conduct: Wittgenstein's late writings and the problem of ethnographic description’, MS, 16 pages. Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University.
Sidner, C. L. 1983, ‘Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora’, in Brady, M. and Berwick, R. C. (eds.), Computational Models of Discourse, pp. 267–330. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. 2004, Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976, ‘Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description’, in Basso, K. and Selby, H. (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology, pp. 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 2004, ‘“Cultural” concepts and the language-culture nexus’, Current Anthropology, 45(5): 621–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M.2005, ‘The ethics of the archive in the politics of “cultural heritage”’, MS, 30 pages.
Simon, H. A. 1990, ‘A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism’, Science, 250: 1665–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sohn, H.-M. 1999, The Korean language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995, Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. 2005a, ‘Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2): 131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.2005b, ‘Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: Nodding as a token of preliminary affiliation’, unpublished paper, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Strauss, S. 1993, ‘Why “this” and “that” are not complete without “it’”, in Beals, K., Cooke, G., Kathman, D., McCullouoh, K. E., Kita, S. and Testen, D. (eds.), CLS 29: Papers From the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 403–17. Chicago: The Society.Google Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 2002, ‘A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and non-native speakers’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1807–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taub, S. F. 2001, Language in the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A. K. 2004 (1976), ‘Pre-announcement sequences in conversation’, in Lerner, G. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Toennies, F. 1961, ‘Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft’, in Parsons, T., Shils, E., Naegele, K. D. and Pitts, J. R. (eds.), Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory, pp. 191–201. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Tooker, E. and Conklin, H. C. (eds.) 1984, Naming Systems: 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Valentine, T., Brennan, T. and Brédart, S. 1996, The Cognitive Psychology of Proper Names. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Meer, R. K., Breed, M., Espelie, K. and Winston, M. (eds.) 1998, Pheromone Communication in Social Insects. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Villa Rojas, A. 1978, ‘Los Elegidos de Dios: Etnografía de los Mayas de Quintana Roo’, Séria de Antropología Social, 56. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.Google Scholar
Kriegstein, K., Eger, E., Kleinschmidt, A. and Giraud, A. L. 2003, ‘Modulation of neural responses to speech by directing attention to voices or verbal content’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 17: 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriegstein, K., Kleinschmidt, A., Sterzer, P. and Giraud, A.-L. 2005, ‘Interaction of face and voice areas during speaker recognition’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17: 367–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, A. B. 1976, Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. 1956, Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1992, Semantics, Culture, and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. J. 1973, Crab Antics: The Social Anthropology of English-speaking Negro Societies of the Caribbean. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953, Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wong, J. 2000, ‘Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation’, Applied Linguistics, 21(2): 244–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, M. 1971, Fighting with Food. Leadership, Values and Social Control in a Massim Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Young, M. 2004, Malinowski – Odyssee of an Anthropologist 1884–1920. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Young, A. W., Mc Weeny, K. H., Ellis, A. W. and Hay, D. C. 1986, ‘Naming and categorizing faces and names’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A: 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitlyn, D. 1993, ‘Reconstructing kinship or the pragmatics of kin talk’, Man, 28: 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1949, Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. 1978, ‘On markedness in morphology’, Die Sprache, 24: 129–43.Google 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.

  • References
  • Edited by N. J. Enfield, Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands, Tanya Stivers, Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands
  • Book: Person Reference in Interaction
  • Online publication: 22 September 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.015
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.

  • References
  • Edited by N. J. Enfield, Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands, Tanya Stivers, Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands
  • Book: Person Reference in Interaction
  • Online publication: 22 September 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.015
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.

  • References
  • Edited by N. J. Enfield, Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands, Tanya Stivers, Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, The Netherlands
  • Book: Person Reference in Interaction
  • Online publication: 22 September 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.015
Available formats
×