Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T13:18:08.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

Arnulf Deppermann
Affiliation:
Universität Mannheim, Germany
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Antaki, C. (2004). Reading minds or dealing with interactional implications? Theory and Psychology, 14, 667–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–53.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–105.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. & Levinson, S. C. (2020). Conversational expectations get revised as response latencies unfold. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(6), 766–99.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making It Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. B. (2014). Intentionality and language. In Enfield, N., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 347–63.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. & Carlson, T. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58, 332–73.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 5586.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulter, J. (1983). Contingent and a priori structures in sequential analysis. Human Studies, 6(1), 361–74.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about social action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2012). How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 34(6), 746–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2014). Multimodal participation in simultaneous joint projects: Interpersonal and intrapersonal coordination in paramedic emergency drills. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M., eds., Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 247–82.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015). Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S., eds., Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 5794.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018). Inferential practices in social interaction: A conversation-analytic account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 3555.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–51.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2011). Reflections on the micro-politics of social action, in interaction. Paper presented at the 12th International Pragmatics Association Conference, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2018). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 241–59.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014a). Requesting – from speech act to recruitment. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 134.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds. (2014b). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1988). Intentions, language, and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 1333.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017a). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017b). On the concept of action in the study of interaction. Discourse Studies, 19, 515–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299318.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In McKinney, J. C. & Tiryakian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 338–66.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr (1999). Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gisladottir, R., Bögels, S. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialogue. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 34, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00034.Google Scholar
Gisladottir, R., Chwilla, D. & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS One, 10(3): e0120068.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in Society, 5(3), 257313.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2013) The co-operative, transformative organisation of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 823.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2012). Being equivocal: Affective responses left unspecified. In Peräkylä, A. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–73.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskes, I. & Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 4585.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 4156.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Implicatures and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. & Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281304.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87112.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, D., ed., Qualitative Sociology, 3rd ed. London: Sage, pp. 208–30.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 3052.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J. & Pilnick, A. (2002). The tacit order of teamwork: Collaboration and embodied conduct in anaesthesia. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 139–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1900–8.Google Scholar
Hömke, P., Holler, J. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Eye blinks are perceived as communicative signals in human face-to-face interaction. PLoS One, 13(12): e0208030.Google Scholar
Jayyusi, L. (1991). Values and moral judgement: Communicative praxis as moral order. In Button, G., ed., Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 227–51.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1990). List-construction as a task and a resource. In Psathas, G., ed., Interaction Competence. Washington, DC: University Press of America, pp. 6392.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. (1977). Preliminary notes on the sequential organization of laughter. Pragmatics microfiche. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87114.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 119.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M. et al. (2020). Sequence organisation: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 119–38.Google Scholar
Kevoe-Feldman, H. & Robinson, J. D. (2012). Exploring essentially three-turn courses of action: An institutional case study with implications for ordinary talk. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 217–41.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisà, M. & Verscheuren, J., eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 473–92.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human “interaction engine.” In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality. Oxford: Berg, pp. 3969.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2017). Speech acts. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199216.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillet-Shore, D. (2016). Criticizing another’s child: How teachers evaluate students during parent–teacher conferences. Language in Society, 45(1), 3358.Google Scholar
Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). When to make the sensory social: Registering in face-to-face openings. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 1039, doi:10.1002/symb.481.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (2017). Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. & Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honour of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 6176.Google Scholar
Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 701–25.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (ed.) (2016). Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M. (1982). The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11(2), 203–37.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (2015). The request system in Italian interaction (Ph.D. dissertation). Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (2018). Composite social actions: The case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 379–97.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1963). Sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8, 116.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1985). The inference-making machine. In van Dijk, T., ed., Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press, pp. 1323.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2852.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Description in the social sciences I: Talk-in-interaction. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 2(1–2), 124.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D., eds., Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4470.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–345.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 185211.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161216.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499545.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reply to Wetherell. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 413–16.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–20.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). On possibles. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 141–57.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3848.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289327.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1976). The social world and the theory of social action. In Brodersen, A., ed., A. Schütz, Collected Papers Volume 3: Studies in Social Theory. Berlin: Springer, pp. 319.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, L. M. (2018). Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 3351.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–99.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–37.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In Enfield, N., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 423–46.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds. (2017). Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 297321.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185207.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010a). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 331.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010b). A scalar view of response relevance. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 4956.Google Scholar
Szczepek-Reed, B. & Raymond, G., eds. (2013). Units of Talk – Units of Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., Fox, B. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1968[1922]). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York, NY: Bedminster.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. (2016). Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

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

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×