Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T01:14:41.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Emanuel A. Schegloff
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
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
Sequence Organization in Interaction
A Primer in Conversation Analysis
, pp. 287 - 293
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

Atkinson, J. M. 1992. Displaying Neutrality: Formal Aspects of Informal Court Proceedings. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–211.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1979. Philosophical Papers. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, W. A. 1993. Transitional Regularities for “Casual” “Okay” Usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., and Johns, C. 1980. Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching.London: Longman.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1978. Universals of Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.) Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, G. 1988/89. Topic initiation: business at hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, G. and Casey, N. 1984. Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–90.Google Scholar
Button, G. and Casey, N. 1985. Topic Nomination and Topic Pursuit. Human Studies 8: 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2004. Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation: The Case of New Beginnings. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Ford, C. E. (eds.) Sound Patters in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 335–76.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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–28.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. A. 1990. Modifications of Invitations, Offers and Rejections. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Interaction Competence. Washington: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, pp. 149–80.Google Scholar
Drew, P. 1984. Speakers' Reportings in Invitation Sequences. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–64.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. 1992b. Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) 1992a. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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: 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, M. M. 1997. Some Interactional Achievements of Other-Initiated Repair in Multi-Person Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 611–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. 1997. The Conversation Object Mm: A Weak and Variable Acknowledging Token. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30(2): 131–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. 2002. When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1955. On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Psychiatry 18(3): 213–31. Reprinted in E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, pp. 5–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gathering. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1964. The Neglected Situation. In The Ethnography of Communication, John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Special issue of American Anthropologist 66 (6), part 2: 133–36.
Goffman, E. 1969. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1978. Response Cries. Language 54: 787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, J. A. 1978. Amplitude Shift: A Mechanism for the Affiliation of Utterances in Conversational Interaction. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 199–218.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1979. The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 97–121.
Goodwin, C., 1980. Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50:272–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. 1983. Searching for a Word as an Interactive Activity. In Deely, J. N. and Lenhart, M. D. (eds.) Semiotics 1981. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C. 1986. Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word. Semiotica 62(1/2): 51–75.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984a. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C. 1984b. A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C. 1985. Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 95–119.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C. 1988. Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. In Antaki, C. (ed.) Understanding Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 127–44.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C. 1998. Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry. Language in Society 27: 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 2002. The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. C. and Roth, A. L. 1995. Grammar and Institution: Questions and Questioning in the Broadcast News Interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. C. and Sorjonen, M.-L. 1994. Constituting and Maintaining Activities Across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design. Language in Society 1: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, R., Doany, N., Johnson, M., and Drummond, K. 1990/91. 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. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 157–79.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. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 232–50.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1972. Side Sequences. In Sudnow, D. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 294–338.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1978a. Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Coversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1978b. What's In a “Nyem”?Sociology 1(1): 135–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1980. On “Trouble-Premonitory” Response to Inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50(34): 153–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1981. The Abominable “Ne?”: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response. Occasional Paper no. 6, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, England.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1983a. An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 35.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1983b. Issues in the Transcription of Naturally-Occurring Talk: Caricature versus Capturing Pronunciational Particulars. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 34.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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–221.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1985. An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1990. List Construction as a Task and Interactional Resource. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Interaction Competence. Washington: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, pp. 63–92.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1996. A Case of Transcriptional Stereotyping. Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.CrossRef
Jefferson, G. and Schenkein, J. 1978. Some Sequential Negotiations in Conversation: Unexpanded and Expanded Versions of Projected Action Sequences. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 155–72.Google Scholar
Koshik, I. 2002. A Conversation Analytic Study of Yes/No Questions Which Convey Reversed Polarity Assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1851–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. L. 1991. A Conversation Analysis of Structure and Interaction in the Language Interview. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of TESL and Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lazaraton, A. 1997. Preference Organization in Oral Proficiency Interviews: The Case of Language Ability Assessments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30: 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. 2002. Practice Does Not Make Perfect: Intervening Actions in the Selection of Next Speaker. Plenary Address at the Conference on Language, Interaction and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles.
Lerner, G. H. 2003. Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a Context-Free Organization. Language in Society 32: 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. (ed.). 2004a. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. 2004b. The Collaborative Turn Sequence. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. 1979. Activity Types and Language. Linguistics 17: 365–99. Reprinted in P. Drew and J. Heritage. 1992a. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1980. Speech Act Theory: The State of the Art. Language and Linguistic Teaching: Abstracts 13(1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1981. The Essential Inadequacies of Speech Act Models of Dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M., and Verschueren, J. (eds.) Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics at Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 473–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A. K. B. 1994. Identification and Recognition in Swedish Telephone Conversation Openings. Language in Society 22(2): 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A. K. B. 1997. Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Maynard, D. W. 2003. Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. 1985. The Structure of Classroom Discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 120–31.Google Scholar
Merritt, M. 1976. On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters. Language in Society 5(3): 315–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T., (ed. and rev.) 1984. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Park, Y.-Y. 2002. Recognition and Identification in Japanese and Korean Telephone Conversation Openings. In Luke, K. K., and Pavlidou, T.-S. (eds.) Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyrot, M. 1994. Therapeutic Preliminaries: Conversational Context and Process in Psychotherapy. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Pomerantz, A. 1978. Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–112.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (ed.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Psathas, G. 1991. The Structure of Direction-Giving in Interaction. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. 2000. The Structure of Responding: Type-Conforming and Non-Conforming Responses to Yes/No Interrogatives. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Raymond, G. 2003. Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. 2004. Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation. Reseasrch on Language and Social Interaction 37(2): 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. and Olsher, D. 1997. Some Standard Uses of “What About”-Prefaced Interrogatives in the Broadcast News Interview. Issues in Applied Linguistics 8(1): 3–25.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1974. An Analysis of the Course of a Joke's Telling in Conversation. In Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (eds.) Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337–53.CrossRef
Sacks, H. 1975. Everyone Has to Lie. In Sanches, M. and Blount, B. G. (eds.) Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press, pp. 57–80.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1987 [1973]. On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1992a. Lectures on Conversation, vol: II, ed. Jefferson, Gail, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1992b. Lectures on Conversation, vol. II, ed. Gail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff.
Sacks, H. and 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: Irvington Publishers, pp. 15–21.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
Scheflen, A. E. 1961. A Psychotherapy of Schizophrenia: Direct Analysis. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1968. Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1972. Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In Sudnow, D. N. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 75–119.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1979. Identification and Recognition in Telephone Openings. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Erlbaum, pp. 23–78.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. 1986. The Routine as Achievement. Human Studies 9: 111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1987. Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2): 101–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988a. Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A. (eds.) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 89–135.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988b. On an Actual Virtual Servo-Mechanism for Guessing Bad News: A Single Case Conjecture. Social Problems 35(4): 442–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988c. Presequences and Indirection: Applying Speech Act Theory to Ordinary Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988/89. From Interview to Confrontation: Observations on the Bush/Rather Encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 215–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1990. On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of “Coherence” in Talk-in-Interaction. In Dorval, B. (ed.) Conversational Organization and its Development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co., pp. 51–77.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992a. Introduction. In Jefferson, G. (ed.) Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation, vol. II. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. ix–lxII.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992b. On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–34.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992c. To Searle on Conversation: A Note in Return. In Searle, John R.(On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1995. Discourse as an Interactional Achievement III: The Omnirelevance of Action. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3): 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996a. Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action. American Journal of Sociology 104(1): 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996b. Issues of Relevance for Discourse Analysis: Contingency in Action, Interaction and Co-Participant Context. In Hovy, E. H. and Scott, D. (eds.) Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996c. Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics. In Fox, B. A. (ed.) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 437–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996d. Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A. (eds.) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1998. Body Torque. Social Research 65(3): 535–96.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2001. Getting Serious: Joke → Serious “No.”Journal of Pragmatics 33(12): 1947–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2002a [1970]. Opening Sequencing. In Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.) Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 321–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2002b. Reflections on Research on Telephone Conversation: Issues of Cross-Cultural Scope and Scholarly Exchange, Interactional Import and Consequences. In Luke, K. K. and Pavlidon, T. S. (eds.) Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 249–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2003. Conversation Analysis and Communication Disorders. In Goodwin, C. (ed.) Conversation and Brain Damage. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–55.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2004a [1970]. Answering the Phone. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 63–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2004b. Putting the Interaction Back into Dialogue (Commentary on Pickering and Garrod: “Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue”). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(2): 207–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2005. On Integrity in Inquiry … of the Investigated, not the Investigator. Discourse Studies 7(45): 455–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2006 [frth]. Interaction: The Infrastructure for Social Institutions, the Natural Ecological Niche for Language, and the Arena in Which Culture is Enacted. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. 1973. Opening Up Closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. 1977. The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 53(2): 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect Speech Acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1976. The Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 5: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. and Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, R. M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarplee, C. 1991. Working on Talk: Interactions Between Adults and Young Children During Picture Book Labelling Sequences. Paper presented at a Conference on Current Work in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, Amsterdam.
ten Have, P. 1991. Talk and Institution: A Reconsideration of the “Asymmetry” of Doctor–Patient Interaction. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 138–63.Google Scholar
Terasaki, A. 2004. Pre-Announcement Sequences in Conversation. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 174–223. First appeared as Social Science Working Paper 99, School of Social Sciences, Irvine, CA, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. 1983. Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-Sex Conversations between Unacquainted Persons. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., and Henley, N. (eds.) Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 102–17.Google Scholar
Whalen, M. and Zimmerman, D. H. 1987. Sequential and Institutional Contexts in Calls for Help. Social Psychology Quarterly 50: 172–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. 1984. Talk and Its Occasion: The Case of Calling the Police. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. 1992. Displaying Neutrality: Formal Aspects of Informal Court Proceedings. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–211.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1979. Philosophical Papers. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, W. A. 1993. Transitional Regularities for “Casual” “Okay” Usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., and Johns, C. 1980. Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching.London: Longman.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1978. Universals of Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.) Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, G. 1988/89. Topic initiation: business at hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, G. and Casey, N. 1984. Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–90.Google Scholar
Button, G. and Casey, N. 1985. Topic Nomination and Topic Pursuit. Human Studies 8: 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2004. Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation: The Case of New Beginnings. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Ford, C. E. (eds.) Sound Patters in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 335–76.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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–28.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. A. 1990. Modifications of Invitations, Offers and Rejections. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Interaction Competence. Washington: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, pp. 149–80.Google Scholar
Drew, P. 1984. Speakers' Reportings in Invitation Sequences. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–64.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. 1992b. Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) 1992a. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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: 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, M. M. 1997. Some Interactional Achievements of Other-Initiated Repair in Multi-Person Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 611–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. 1997. The Conversation Object Mm: A Weak and Variable Acknowledging Token. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30(2): 131–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. 2002. When Listeners Talk. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1955. On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Psychiatry 18(3): 213–31. Reprinted in E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, pp. 5–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gathering. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1964. The Neglected Situation. In The Ethnography of Communication, John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Special issue of American Anthropologist 66 (6), part 2: 133–36.
Goffman, E. 1969. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1978. Response Cries. Language 54: 787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, J. A. 1978. Amplitude Shift: A Mechanism for the Affiliation of Utterances in Conversational Interaction. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 199–218.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1979. The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 97–121.
Goodwin, C., 1980. Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50:272–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. 1983. Searching for a Word as an Interactive Activity. In Deely, J. N. and Lenhart, M. D. (eds.) Semiotics 1981. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C. 1986. Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word. Semiotica 62(1/2): 51–75.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984a. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C. 1984b. A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C. 1985. Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 95–119.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C. 1988. Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. In Antaki, C. (ed.) Understanding Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 127–44.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. C. 1998. Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry. Language in Society 27: 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 2002. The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. C. and Roth, A. L. 1995. Grammar and Institution: Questions and Questioning in the Broadcast News Interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. C. and Sorjonen, M.-L. 1994. Constituting and Maintaining Activities Across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design. Language in Society 1: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, R., Doany, N., Johnson, M., and Drummond, K. 1990/91. 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. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 157–79.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. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 232–50.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1972. Side Sequences. In Sudnow, D. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 294–338.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1978a. Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Coversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1978b. What's In a “Nyem”?Sociology 1(1): 135–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1980. On “Trouble-Premonitory” Response to Inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50(34): 153–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1981. The Abominable “Ne?”: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response. Occasional Paper no. 6, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, England.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1983a. An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 35.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1983b. Issues in the Transcription of Naturally-Occurring Talk: Caricature versus Capturing Pronunciational Particulars. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 34.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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–221.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1985. An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1990. List Construction as a Task and Interactional Resource. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Interaction Competence. Washington: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, pp. 63–92.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1996. A Case of Transcriptional Stereotyping. Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.CrossRef
Jefferson, G. and Schenkein, J. 1978. Some Sequential Negotiations in Conversation: Unexpanded and Expanded Versions of Projected Action Sequences. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 155–72.Google Scholar
Koshik, I. 2002. A Conversation Analytic Study of Yes/No Questions Which Convey Reversed Polarity Assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1851–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. L. 1991. A Conversation Analysis of Structure and Interaction in the Language Interview. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of TESL and Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lazaraton, A. 1997. Preference Organization in Oral Proficiency Interviews: The Case of Language Ability Assessments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30: 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. 2002. Practice Does Not Make Perfect: Intervening Actions in the Selection of Next Speaker. Plenary Address at the Conference on Language, Interaction and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles.
Lerner, G. H. 2003. Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a Context-Free Organization. Language in Society 32: 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. (ed.). 2004a. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. 2004b. The Collaborative Turn Sequence. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. 1979. Activity Types and Language. Linguistics 17: 365–99. Reprinted in P. Drew and J. Heritage. 1992a. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1980. Speech Act Theory: The State of the Art. Language and Linguistic Teaching: Abstracts 13(1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1981. The Essential Inadequacies of Speech Act Models of Dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M., and Verschueren, J. (eds.) Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics at Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 473–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A. K. B. 1994. Identification and Recognition in Swedish Telephone Conversation Openings. Language in Society 22(2): 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A. K. B. 1997. Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Maynard, D. W. 2003. Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. 1985. The Structure of Classroom Discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 120–31.Google Scholar
Merritt, M. 1976. On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters. Language in Society 5(3): 315–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T., (ed. and rev.) 1984. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Park, Y.-Y. 2002. Recognition and Identification in Japanese and Korean Telephone Conversation Openings. In Luke, K. K., and Pavlidou, T.-S. (eds.) Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyrot, M. 1994. Therapeutic Preliminaries: Conversational Context and Process in Psychotherapy. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Pomerantz, A. 1978. Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints. In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–112.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (ed.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Psathas, G. 1991. The Structure of Direction-Giving in Interaction. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. 2000. The Structure of Responding: Type-Conforming and Non-Conforming Responses to Yes/No Interrogatives. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Raymond, G. 2003. Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. 2004. Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation. Reseasrch on Language and Social Interaction 37(2): 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. and Olsher, D. 1997. Some Standard Uses of “What About”-Prefaced Interrogatives in the Broadcast News Interview. Issues in Applied Linguistics 8(1): 3–25.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1974. An Analysis of the Course of a Joke's Telling in Conversation. In Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (eds.) Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337–53.CrossRef
Sacks, H. 1975. Everyone Has to Lie. In Sanches, M. and Blount, B. G. (eds.) Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press, pp. 57–80.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1987 [1973]. On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1992a. Lectures on Conversation, vol: II, ed. Jefferson, Gail, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1992b. Lectures on Conversation, vol. II, ed. Gail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff.
Sacks, H. and 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: Irvington Publishers, pp. 15–21.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
Scheflen, A. E. 1961. A Psychotherapy of Schizophrenia: Direct Analysis. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1968. Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1972. Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In Sudnow, D. N. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 75–119.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1979. Identification and Recognition in Telephone Openings. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Erlbaum, pp. 23–78.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. 1986. The Routine as Achievement. Human Studies 9: 111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1987. Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2): 101–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988a. Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A. (eds.) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 89–135.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988b. On an Actual Virtual Servo-Mechanism for Guessing Bad News: A Single Case Conjecture. Social Problems 35(4): 442–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988c. Presequences and Indirection: Applying Speech Act Theory to Ordinary Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988/89. From Interview to Confrontation: Observations on the Bush/Rather Encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 215–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1990. On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of “Coherence” in Talk-in-Interaction. In Dorval, B. (ed.) Conversational Organization and its Development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co., pp. 51–77.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992a. Introduction. In Jefferson, G. (ed.) Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation, vol. II. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. ix–lxII.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992b. On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–34.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1992c. To Searle on Conversation: A Note in Return. In Searle, John R.(On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1995. Discourse as an Interactional Achievement III: The Omnirelevance of Action. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3): 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996a. Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action. American Journal of Sociology 104(1): 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996b. Issues of Relevance for Discourse Analysis: Contingency in Action, Interaction and Co-Participant Context. In Hovy, E. H. and Scott, D. (eds.) Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996c. Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics. In Fox, B. A. (ed.) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 437–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996d. Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A. (eds.) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1998. Body Torque. Social Research 65(3): 535–96.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2001. Getting Serious: Joke → Serious “No.”Journal of Pragmatics 33(12): 1947–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2002a [1970]. Opening Sequencing. In Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.) Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 321–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2002b. Reflections on Research on Telephone Conversation: Issues of Cross-Cultural Scope and Scholarly Exchange, Interactional Import and Consequences. In Luke, K. K. and Pavlidon, T. S. (eds.) Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 249–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2003. Conversation Analysis and Communication Disorders. In Goodwin, C. (ed.) Conversation and Brain Damage. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–55.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2004a [1970]. Answering the Phone. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 63–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2004b. Putting the Interaction Back into Dialogue (Commentary on Pickering and Garrod: “Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue”). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(2): 207–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2005. On Integrity in Inquiry … of the Investigated, not the Investigator. Discourse Studies 7(45): 455–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2006 [frth]. Interaction: The Infrastructure for Social Institutions, the Natural Ecological Niche for Language, and the Arena in Which Culture is Enacted. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. 1973. Opening Up Closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. 1977. The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 53(2): 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect Speech Acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. III. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1976. The Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 5: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. and Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, R. M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarplee, C. 1991. Working on Talk: Interactions Between Adults and Young Children During Picture Book Labelling Sequences. Paper presented at a Conference on Current Work in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, Amsterdam.
ten Have, P. 1991. Talk and Institution: A Reconsideration of the “Asymmetry” of Doctor–Patient Interaction. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 138–63.Google Scholar
Terasaki, A. 2004. Pre-Announcement Sequences in Conversation. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 174–223. First appeared as Social Science Working Paper 99, School of Social Sciences, Irvine, CA, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. 1983. Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-Sex Conversations between Unacquainted Persons. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., and Henley, N. (eds.) Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 102–17.Google Scholar
Whalen, M. and Zimmerman, D. H. 1987. Sequential and Institutional Contexts in Calls for Help. Social Psychology Quarterly 50: 172–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. 1984. Talk and Its Occasion: The Case of Calling the Police. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 210–28.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.

  • References
  • Emanuel A. Schegloff, University of California, Los Angeles
  • Book: Sequence Organization in Interaction
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208.018
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
  • Emanuel A. Schegloff, University of California, Los Angeles
  • Book: Sequence Organization in Interaction
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208.018
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
  • Emanuel A. Schegloff, University of California, Los Angeles
  • Book: Sequence Organization in Interaction
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208.018
Available formats
×