Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:04:08.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Constituents of Action Ascription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

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

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 29 - 132
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

References

Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. & Good, D. A. (2002). Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In Fetzer, A. & Meierkord, C., eds., Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 120–50.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. 55–86.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2011). Reflections on the micro-politics of social action in interaction. Paper presented the 12th International Pragmatics Association Conference, University of Manchester.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
Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 593–611.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1961). Aspects of the problem of common-sense knowledge of social structures. In Wolff, K. H., ed., Transactions of the Fourth World Conference of Sociology (1959). Louvain: International Sociological Association, pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. ([1948] 2006). Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Prompting offers of assistance in interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 8(2), 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. & Pillet-Shore, D. M. (2018). Getting to know you: Teasing as an invitation to intimacy in initial interactions. Discourse Studies, 20(2), 246–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. & Yoon, K. (2009). Negotiating boundaries in talk. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–78.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2016). On the diversity of “changes of state” and their indices. Journal of Pragmatics, 104, 207–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. & 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, NY: Academic Press, pp. 155–72.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. R. S. (2013). Retroactive indexing of relevance: The use of “well” in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2), 125–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (2019). When someone other than the addressed recipient speaks next: Three kinds of intervening action after the selection of next speaker. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(4), 388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (1989). Perspective-display sequences in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2013). Grammar in conversation. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 475–91.Google Scholar
Merritt, M. (1976). On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society, 5(3), 315–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillet-Shore, D. (2018). How to begin. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 213–31.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2005). Garfinkel’s conception of time. Time and Society, 14, 163–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2006). Respecifying the study of social order: Garfinkel’s transition from theoretical conceptualization to practices in details. In Rawls, A. W., ed., Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action by Harold Garfinkel. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, pp. 1–97.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. (2013). Overall structural organization. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 257–80.Google 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
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, pp. 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. Oxford: Blackwell.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.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1981). Discourse as interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, D., ed., Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Discourse as interactional achievement II: An exercise in conversation analysis. In Tannen, D., ed., Linguistics in Context. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, pp. 135–58.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D. H., eds., Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 44–70.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 185–211.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.Google Scholar
Seuren, L. M. (2018). Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds. (2013). Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.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), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Alexander, J. (1978). Formal and substantive voluntarism in the work of Talcott Parsons: A theoretical and ideological reinterpretation. American Sociological Review, 43, 177–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ Okay usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassidy, J. (2008). Subprime suspect. The New Yorker, March 31.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. 55–86.Google Scholar
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, J. L., Mills, N., Smith, M. et al. (2002). Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. British Medical Journal, 325, 766–70.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. (1997). ‘Open’ class of repair initiators as responses to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In Fitch, K. & Sanders, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 71–102.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2013). Conversation analysis and social action. Journal of Foreign Languages, 37, 2–20.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Hepburn, A. (2015). Absent apologies. Discourse Processes, 1–18.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. & Messinger, S. L. (1977). The micro-politics of trouble. Social Problems, 25, 121–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). On face work. In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 5–46.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1960). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., Raymond, C. & Drew, P. (2019). Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offences. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Robinson, J. (2006). Accounting for the visit: Giving reasons for seeking medical care. In Heritage, J. & Maynard, D., eds., Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, J. (1974). Strategies of status manipulation in the Wolof greeting. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J., eds., Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–91.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–222.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. 87–114.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: a quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52, 255–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structure of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 303–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In de Ruiter, J. P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1968/1937). The Structure of Social Action. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side. “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2014). Preference. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Blackwell, pp. 210–28.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, pp. 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. Oxford: Blackwell.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.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems, 35, 442–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, C., Connabeer, K., Drew, P. et al. (2020). Initiating end-of-life decisions with parents of infants receiving neonatal intensive care. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(7), 1351–7.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), 297–321.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), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Heritage, J., Barnes, R. K. et al. (2018). Treatment recommendations as actions. Health Communication 33(11), 1335–44.Google Scholar
Toobin, J. (2019). Time in the barrel. The New Yorker, February 18 & 25.Google Scholar

References

Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–54.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 229–58.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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. 55–86.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of “actually.” Language, 77(2), 245–91.Google Scholar
Coulter, J. (1983). Contingent and a priori structures in sequential analysis. Human Studies, 6, 361–76.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Drew, P., eds. (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. (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
Deppermann, A. (2012). How does “cognition” matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 34(6), 746–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015). Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S., eds., Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 57–94.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018). Inferential practices in social interaction: A conversation-analytic account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2021). Social actions. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D. & Terkourafi, M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–94.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. (1995). Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning. In Goody, E., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111–38.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. (2013). Turn design. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2018a). Equivocal invitations (in English). Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (2018b). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 241–59.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
Elder, C.-H. & Haugh, M. (2018). The interactional achievement of speaker meaning: Toward a formal account of conversational inference. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15, 593–625.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.Google 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
Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, “trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. In Harvey, O. J., ed., Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants. New York, NY: Ronald Press, pp. 187–238.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. ([1948]2006). Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In McKinney, J. C. & Tiraykian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology. Perspectives and Developments. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 338–66.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organisation of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 1–54.Google Scholar
Haakana, M. (2007). Reported thought in complaint stories. In Holt, E. & Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk. Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–78.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2009). Intention(ality) and the conceptualisation of communication in pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017a). Implicature and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. & Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017b). Prompting offers of assistance in interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 8(2), 183–207.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google 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. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15, 551–78.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2018). The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ group. Discourse Studies, 20, 14–56.Google 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
Hofstetter, E. & Stokoe, E. (2015). Offers of assistance in politician–constituent interaction. Discourse Studies, 17, 724–51.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2016). Laughter at last: Playfulness and laughter in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 100, 89–102.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on “latency” in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9, 153–83.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2017). Negotiating deontic rights in second position: Young adult daughters’ imperatively formatted responses to mothers’ offers in Estonian. In Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 271–95.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. 87–114.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitments: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. In Goody, E., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–60.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013a). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013b). Recursion in pragmatics. Language, 89, 149–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2017). Speech acts. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2011). On understanding understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 553–55.Google Scholar
Macbeth, D. & Wong, J. (2016). The story of “oh,” Part 2: Animating transcript. Discourse Studies, 18, 574–96.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. (2013). Defensive mechanisms: I-mean-prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G. & Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–233.Google Scholar
Melden, A. I. (1961). Free Action, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 5(6), 904–13.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. 61–76.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2005). Garfinkel’s conception of time. Time & Society, 14, 163–90.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–67.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. ([1964/1965]1989). The inference making machine. Human Studies, 12, 379–93.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–18.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. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–20.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, C. & Hepburn, A. (2013). Managing the moral implications of advice in informal settings. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 344–62.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. (2017a). Distributed agency and action under the radar of accountability. In Enfield, N. J. & Kockelman, P., eds., Distributed Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017b). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–37.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), 185–207.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., Fox, B. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. (1989). Beyond the adjacency pair. Language in Society, 18, 545–64.Google Scholar
Turk, M. (2007) Self-referential gestures in conversation. Discourse Studies, 9, 558–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. & Heinemann, T. (2015). The alignment of manual and verbal displays in requests for the repair of an object. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 342–62.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
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. H., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018a). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018b). The multimodal interactional organization of tasting: Practices of tasting cheese in gourmet shops. Discourse Studies, 20(6), 743–69.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (in press). Offers to taste in gourmet food shops: Small gifts in an economy of sale. In Fox, B., Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Encounters at the Counter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2016). First and subsequent requests in French and Finnish kiosks. Language in Society, 45, 733–65.Google Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, M.-B. (1998). The Function of Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–67.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York, NY: The Free Press, pp. 31–74.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.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, L. M. & Huiskes, M. (2017). Confirmation or elaboration: What do Yes/No declaratives want? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 188–205.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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
×