Book contents
- Action Ascription in Interaction
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Action Ascription in Interaction
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Constituents of Action Ascription
- Part II Practices of Action Ascription
- Part III Revisiting Action Ascription
- Book part
- Index
- References
Part III - Revisiting Action Ascription
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- Action Ascription in Interaction
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Action Ascription in Interaction
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Constituents of Action Ascription
- Part II Practices of Action Ascription
- Part III Revisiting Action Ascription
- Book part
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 277 - 329Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Clark, H. & Fox Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, T. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M. & Floyd, S. (2014). Conversation across cultures. In Enfield, N., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 447–80.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J. et al. (2015). Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLOS ONE 10(9), e013610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingemanse, M., Rossi, G. & Floyd, S. (2017). Place reference in story beginnings: A cross-linguistic study of narrative and interactional affordances. Language in Society, 46(2), 129–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2017). How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation, New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Kockelman, P., eds. (2017). Distributed Agency. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G. & Enfield, N. J., eds. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1952). The Perception of the Other: A Study in Social Order. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1992). On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers, pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. ([1957]1971). Shifters, verbals categories, and the Russian verb. In Jakobson, R., ed., Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 130–47.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Schenkein, J., ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. In Krebs, J. and Davies, N., eds., Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2nd ed. London: Blackwell, pp. 380–405.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2017). Speech acts. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in sequences of talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behaviour in face-to-face interaction. Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Rumsey, A. (1990). Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist, 92(2), 346–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Irvington, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, D., ed., Analysing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Description in the social sciences I: Talk-in-interaction. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 2(1–2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp. 70–96.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2009). Prolegomena to the analysis of action(s) in talk-in-interaction. Paper presented at LISO, University of California Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Some other u(h)ms. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 130–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2009). Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2012). Language diversity and social action: a third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 53(3), 302–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P., Hanks, W. & Hofbauer, C., eds., The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193–247.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. (2012). Coordination and interpretation of vocal and visible resources: ‘Trail-off’ conjunctions. Language and Speech, 55(1), 141–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for casual “okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Alarmiertes Verstehen: Kommunikation in Feuerwehrnotrufen. In Jung, T. & Mueller-Doohm, S., eds., Wirklichkeit im Deutungsprozess: Verstehen und Methoden in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 287–328.Google Scholar
Betz, E., Deppermann, A., Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds. (2021). OKAY across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bögels, S., Casillas, M. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Planning versus comprehension in turn-taking: Fast responders show reduced anticipatory processing of the question. Neuropsychologia, 109 , 295–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. & Levinson, S. C. (2019). Conversational expectations get revised as response latencies unfold. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(6), 1–14.Google Scholar
Bögels, S., Magyari, L. & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation. Scientific Reports, 5, 12881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolinger, D. L. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language, 37, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Fox, M. P. (2017). Hardballs and softballs: Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning. Journal of Language and Politics, 16, 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & 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: Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1984). A new look at contrastive intonation. In Watts, R. J. & Weidmann, U., eds., Modes of Interpretation: Essays Presented to Ernst Leisi on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society, 30, 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation: The case of new beginnings. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ford, C., eds., Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 335–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of “disappointment.” In Haakana, M., Laakso, M. & Lindstrom, J., eds., Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura (Finnish Literature Society), pp. 94–123.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In De Ruiter, J.-P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–45.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. A. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–28.Google Scholar
De Ruiter, J.-P., Mitterer, J. P. & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82, 515–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2013). Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Schmidt, A. (2021). Micro-sequential coordination in bodily early responses. Discourse Processes 58(4), 372–396, doi:10.1080/0163853X.2020.1842630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Streeck, J., eds. (2018). Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In Glenn, P., Lebaron, C. & Mandelbaum, J., eds., Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 293–308.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 131–49.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Drew, P., Walker, T. & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G. & Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–94.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1981). How to make and understand a request. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M. & Verschueren, J., eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G. & Enfield, N. J., eds. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–84.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1952). The perception of the other: A study in social order. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.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 actions. In Mckinney, J. D. & Tiryakian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts, pp. 337–66.Google Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1988). On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 467–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisladottir, R. S., Bögels, S. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialog. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, A. (1997). On the systematic deployment of okay and mmhmm in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7, 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2004a). Discourse within a sentence: An exploration of postpositions in Japanese as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 33, 343–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2004b). Projection and grammar: Notes on the “action-projecting” use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1337–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In Antaki, C., ed., Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. London: Sage, pp. 127–44.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013a). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15, 547–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013b). Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 331–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. E. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Maynard, D. W. (2006). Problems and prospects in the study of physician-patient interaction: 30 years of research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 351–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Maynard, D. W. (2021). Harold Garfinkel and ethnomethodology’s legacies: Introduction. In Maynard, D. W. & Heritage, J., eds., Harold Garfinkel: Praxis, Social Order and Ethnomethodology’s Legacies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Robinson, J. D. (n.d.). Expanded responses in primary care problem presentations. Unpublished Ms. UCLA Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds. (2018). Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. N. (1992). Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Jacobs, J., ed., Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 112–41.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S. (2009). Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46, 226–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1980a). End of Grant Report on Conversations in which “Troubles” or “Anxieties” are Expressed (HR 4805/2). London: Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1980b). On “trouble-premonitory” response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 153–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1983). Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation: “Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset” and “On a failed hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as overlap-vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28. Tilburg: University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on “latency” in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9, 153–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a “standard maximum” silence of approximately one second in conversation. In Roger, D. & Bull, P., eds., Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 166–96.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2013). Turn-opening smiles: Facial expression constructing emotional transition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2014). Foreshadowing a problem: Turn-opening frowns in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 132–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52, 255–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. R. S. & Kuroshima, S., eds. (2013). Turn beginnings in interaction: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K.-H. (1999). Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies, 22, 425–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn-space of another speaker. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–76.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M. & Verschueren, J., eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 473–92.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston, MA: 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. 199–216.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 492–508.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011). The management of knowledge discrepancies and of epistemic changes in institutional interactions. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2012). Garden lessons: Embodied action and joint attention in extended sequences. In Nasu, H. & Waksler, F. C., eds., Interaction and Everyday Life: Phenomenological and Ethnomethodological Essays in honor of George Psathas. Plymouth: Lexington, pp. 279–96.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013). Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visits. Discourse Studies, 15, 597–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014a). Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the kitchen. In Nevile, M., Heinemann, T., Haddington, P. & Rauniomaa, M., eds., Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity, 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2017). Walking and talking together: Questions/answers and mobile participation in guided visits. Social Science Information, 56, 220–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2021). How early can embodied responses be? Issues in time and sequentiality. Discourse Processes, 58(4), 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1752–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Y. (2014). Openings in Korean primary care discourse: Where does it hurt? Discourse and Cognition 담화와인지, 21, 29–56.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual conversation. Language & Communication, 42, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2017). Indexing a contrast: The do-construction in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 118, 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2019). Intersubjectivity, normativity and grammar. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82, 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2020). Tense and aspect in sequences of action. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W., Clift, R. & Heritage, J. (2021). Reference without anaphora: On agency through grammar. Journal of Linguistics, doi:10.1515/ling-2021-0058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W. & Stivers, T. (2016). Off-record account solicitations. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–53.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2016). Closing matters: Alignment and misalignment in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction. Discourse Studies, 18(6), 716–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (1998). Getting down to business: Talk, gaze, and body orientation during openings of doctor–patient consultations. Human Communication Research, 25, 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2003). An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation. Health Communication, 15, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. D. (2006). Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In Heritage, J. & Maynard, D., eds., Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. ed. (2016). Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2020). Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. & Heritage, J. (2005). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: The completion relevance of current symptoms. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 481–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. D. & Stivers, T. (2001). Achieving activity transitions in primary-care encounters: From history taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research, 27, 253–98.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B., eds., Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 308–29.Google Scholar
Rossano, F., Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. In Sidnell, J., ed. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–249.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, G. (in press). Systems of Social Action: The Case of Requesting in Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J., eds., Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337–53.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J., eds., Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 54–69.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Irvington, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992a). To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In Parret, H. & Verschueren, J., eds., (On) Searle On Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992b). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Thompson, S. & Schegloff, E., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 41, 235–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2011). Word repeats as unit ends. Discourse Studies, 13, 367–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, L. M. 2018. Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 5(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sicoli, M. A., Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Marked initial pitch in questions signals marked communicative function. Language and Speech, 58, 204–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Svennevig, J. (2015). Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2772–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mold: Answering “more than the question” during medical history taking. Text, 21, 151–85.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. & Lebaron, C., eds. (2011). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. & Raymond, G. (2013). The question of units for language, action and interaction. In Szczepek Reed, B. & Raymond, G., eds., Units of Talk – Units of Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H. (1999). Grammar and social interaction in Japanese and Anglo-American English: The display of context, social identity and social relation. Human Studies, 22, 363–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Raymond, C. W. & Fox, B. A. (2020). The grammar of proposals for joint activities. International Linguistics, doi:10.1075/il.20011.tho.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, A. (2018). Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 107–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, T. (2014). Form ≠ function: The independence of prosody and action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Acts: A Semantic Dictionary, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. P. (1991). Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D. H., eds., Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 22–43.Google Scholar
Wootton, A. (1989). Remarks on the methodology of Conversation Analysis. In Bull, P. & Roger, D., eds., Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 238–58.Google Scholar
Wu, R. J. R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, R. J. R. & Heritage, J. (2018). Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. H. & Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 273–98.Google Scholar