Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-hcslb Total loading time: 1.492 Render date: 2023-02-01T20:14:45.152Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2017

N. J. Enfield
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Jack Sidnell
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Concept of Action , pp. 195 - 201
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Ackrill, J. 1978. Aristotle on action. Mind 87(4):595601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, A. 1994. Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:277302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, A. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ahearn, L. 2001. Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:109–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1957. Intention. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1979. Under a description. Noûs 13(2):219–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google ScholarPubMed
Boas, F. 1911. Introduction. In Boas, F., ed., The Handbook of American Indian Languages, pp. 383. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1):122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, C. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., and Gilman, A.. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T., ed., Style in Language, pp. 253–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2007. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. 2006. Social actions, social commitments. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, Stephen C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 126–52. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Curl, T., and Drew, P.. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41:129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1963. Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy 60(23):685700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1978. Intending. In Yovel, Yirmiahu, ed., Philosophy of History and Action, pp. 4160. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, E. 1995. There’s no reality like psychological reality. Glot International 1(1): 7.Google Scholar
Drew, P. 1991. Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In Markova, I. and Foppa, K., eds., Asymmetries in Dialogue, pp. 2948. Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Drew, P. 1997. ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28:69101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. 2004. Conversation analysis. In Fitch, K. and Sanders, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, pp. 71102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. 1996. Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. 1990. Politics and grammar: Agency in Samoan political discourse. American Ethnologist 17(4):3656.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. 2004. Agency in language. In Duranti, A., ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 451–73. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. 2015. The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2005. Areal linguistics and mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:181206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2006. Social consequences of common ground. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, pp. 399430. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2007a. A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2007b. Meanings of the unmarked: How ‘default’ person reference does more than just refer. In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T., eds., Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, pp. 97120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2011. Elements of action ascription: A generative account? Paper presented at the Workshop on Proposals and Action Ascription in Conversation, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 17–20 March 2011.
Enfield, N. J. 2013. Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2014a. Natural Causes of Language: Frames, Biases, and Cultural Transmission. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2014b. Human agency and the infrastructure for requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 3553. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2015. Linguistic relativity from reference to agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 44:207–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2017. Language in the mainland Southeast Asia area. In Hickey, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, pp. 677702. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Diffloth, G.. 2009. Phonology and sketch grammar of Kri, a vietic language of Laos. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 38(1):369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Kockelman, P. (eds.). 2017. Distributed Agency. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Levinson, S. C.. 2006. Introduction: Human sociality as a new interdisciplinary field. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 138. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Sidnell, J.. 2012. Collateral effects, agency, and systems of language use. Current Anthropology 53:327–29.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Sidnell, J.. 2014. Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction. In Dor, D., Knight, C., and Lewis, J., eds., The Social Origins of Language, pp. 92104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C. W., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., and Levinson, S.. 2017. Polar answers. Ms. submitted for publication.
Errington, J. 1985. On the nature of the sociolinguistic sign: Describing the Javanese speech levels. In Mertz, E. and Parmentier, R. J., eds., Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 287310. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Errington, J. 1988. Structure and Style in Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic Etiquette. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1937. Witchcraft, Magic and Oracles among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Everett, C. 2013. Linguistic Relativity: Evidence across Languages and Cognitive Domains. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnegan, R. 1969. How to do things with words: Performative utterances among the Limba of Sierra Leone. Man New Series 4(4, Dec.): 537–52.Google Scholar
Fleming, L., and Lempert, M.. 2014. Poetics and performativity. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., and Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 485515. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Dingemanse, M., Kendrick, K. H., Zinken, J., and Enfield, N. J.. 2014. Recruitments across languages: A systematic comparison. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Conversation Analysis, University of California at Los Angeles.
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., and Enfield, N. J., eds. In press. Getting People to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., and Thompson, S. A.. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Enfield, N. J. and Kockelman, P., eds., Distributed Agency, pp. 1438. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H., and Sacks, H.. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney, J. D. and Tiryakian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology, pp. 337–66. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., and Goldin-Meadow, S.. 2003. Whither whorf. In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S., eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, pp. 314. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1993. New Rules of Sociological Method, 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., and Pachur, T. (eds.). 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gipper, S. 2011. Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: An interactional account. PhD dissertation, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.
Gluckman, M. 1963. Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology 4(3):307–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1957. Alienation from interaction. Human Relations 10:4760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5(3):257313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25:129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1987. Unilateral departure. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds., Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 206–16. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10):1489–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 2002. Time in action. Current Anthropology 43:(S)1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 2006. Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 97125. London: Berg.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., and Goodwin, M. H.. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1):152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C., and Heritage, J.. 1990. Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:283307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. 1990. He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., and Levinson, S. C. (eds.). 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1998. Making up people. In Biagioli, M., ed., Science Studies Reader, pp. 161–71. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., and Sorjonen, M.-L.. 2009. Designing utterances for action: Ways of repeating the verb as a response to an assessment. In Haakana, M., Laakso, M., and Lindström, J., eds., Talk-in-Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, pp. 124–51. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayano, K. 2011. Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 5881. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayano, K. 2013. Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation. Unpublished PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J.. 2013. Introduction: Conversational repair and human understanding. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27(3):291334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 2002. Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 196224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15:547–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Raymond, G.. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1):1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., and Raymond, G.. 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In De Ruiter, J. P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, pp. 179–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203:8996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. 2006. The distributed cognition perspective on human interaction. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, pp. 375–98. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E., and Hazlehurst, B.. 1995. How to invent a shared lexicon: The emergence of shared form–meaning mappings in interaction. In Goody, E., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human Intelligence, pp. 5367. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. 1966. Two types of linguistic relativity (with examples from Amerindian ethnography). In Bright, W., ed., Sociolinguistics, Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964, pp. 114–57. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jacquemet, M. 1994. T-offenses and metapragmatic attacks: Strategies of interactional dominance. Discourse and Society 5(3):297319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1960. Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in Language, pp. 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1990a. The speech event and the functions of language. In Waugh, L. R. and Monville, M., eds., On Language, pp. 6979. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1990b. Shifters and verbal categories. In Waugh, L. R. and Monville-Burston, M., eds., On Language, pp. 386–92. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
James, W. 1890. Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1980. On ‘trouble-premonitory’ response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50:153–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 1323. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2013. Talking about Troubles in Conversation. New York: Oxford Unviersity Press.Google Scholar
Jones, B. M. 1999. The Welsh Answering System. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. 2010. Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization. Discourse Studies 12(3):283309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. 1990. Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., and Drew, P.. 2016. Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. 1997. Demonstrating recipiency: Knowledge displays as a resource for the unaddressed participant. Issues in Applied Linguistics 8:8596.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. 2011. Epistemics and embodiment in the interactions of very young children. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 2957. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M., and Zimmerman, D. H.. 2006. ‘Observability’ in the interactions of very young children. Communication Monographs 73(1):128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2005. The semiotic stance. Semiotica 157(1–4):233304.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2006a. Representations of the world: Memories, perceptions, beliefs, intentions, and plans. Semiotica 162(1–4):73125.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2006b. Residence in the world: Affordances, instruments, actions, roles, and identities. Semiotica 162(1–4):1971.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2007a. Agency: The relation between meaning, power, and knowledge. Current Anthropology 48(3):375401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2007b. From status to contract revisited: Value, temporality, circulation and subjectivity. Anthropological Theory 7(2):151–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P. 2013. Agent, Person, Subject, Self: A Theory of Ontology, Interaction, and Infrastructure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K. 1996. Notes on the history of the concept of language as a system ‘ou tout se tient’. Linguistica Atlantica 18/19:120.Google Scholar
König, E., and Siemund, P.. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, E. R. 1968. Ritual. In Sills, D., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. XIII, pp. 520–6. New York. Macmillan and Free Press.Google Scholar
Leavitt, J. 2011. Linguistic Relativities: Language Diversity and Modern Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, B. 1997. Talking Heads: Language, Metalanguage, and the Semiotics of Subjectivity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.-H. 2012. Response design in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 415–32. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lee, S.-H. 2015. Two forms of affirmative responses to polar questions. Discourse Processes 52:2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2005. Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 431–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2006. On the human ‘interaction engine’. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 39–6. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 103–30. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2016. Speech acts. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 199216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., and Wilkins, D. P. (eds.). 2006. Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P., and Gleitman, L.. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83(3):265–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucy, J. A. 1992a. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A. 1992b. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A. 1997. Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:291312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Boster, J. S., and Bowerman, M.. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109(2):235–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic. Vol. II: The Language of Magic and Gardening. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, L. H. [1871] 1997. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. [1887] 1967. On The Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, trans. and ed. Kaufmann, Walter (translation of On the Genealogy in collaboration with Hollingdale, R. J.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1988. Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1990. Indexicality and socialization. In Stigler, J., Herdt, G., and Shweder, R., eds., Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development, pp. 287308.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, pp. 335–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 407–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parmentier, R. J. 1994a. Peirce divested for non-initiates. In Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology, pp. 322. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Parmentier, R. J. 1994b. Peirce’s concept of Semiotic Mediation. In Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology, pp. 2344. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Pagel, M. 2012. Wired for Culture: Origins Of The Human Social Mind. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D. G., Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., and Senft, G.. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74(3):557–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1955. Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In Buchler, J., ed., Philosophical Writings of Peirce, pp. 98120. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1978. Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, J., ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, pp. 79112. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1980. Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing device’. Sociological Inquiry 50:186–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9(2–3):219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1988. Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs 55(4):360–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A., and Heritage, J.. 2012. Preference. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 210–28. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J.. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rappaport, R. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, R. 2002. Enactments of meaning. In Lambek, M., ed., A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion, pp. 446–67. Malden: Blackwell. (Excerpted from Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, Cambridge University Press, 1999.)Google Scholar
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. 2013. At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: On the relevance of ‘slots’ in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. In Reed, B. Szczepek and Raymond, G., eds., Units of Talk: Units of Action, pp. 169206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G., and Heritage, J.. 2006. The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35:677705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J., 2014. Conversation analysis. In Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A., eds., The Discourse Reader, 3rd edn, pp. 249–63. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J., nd. Interaction at the boundaries of a world known in common: Initiating repair with ‘what do you mean?’ Ms.
Robinson, J. D. 2007. The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis. Communication Methods and Measures 1:6575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosaldo, M. Z. 1982. The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society 11(2):203–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B., eds., Cognition and Categorization, pp. 2748. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. 2012. Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes 49(5):426–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, G. 2014. When do people not use language to make requests? In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 303–34 (Studies in Language and Social Interaction, vol. 26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. 2015. The Request System in Italian Interaction (MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, no. 99). Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Rossi, G., and Zinken, J.. 2016. Grammar and social agency: The pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language 92(4):e296e325. doi:10.1353/lan.2016.0083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, A. 1990. Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist 92(2):346–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1975. Everyone has to lie. In Sanches, M. and Blount, Ben G., eds., Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, pp. 5780. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds., Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 5469. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1995. Lectures on Conversation. Vols. I and II. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G.. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1933. La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathalogique (Paris) 30:247–65. English version published as ‘The psychological reality of phonemes’, in Mandelbaum, D. G., ed., Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality, pp. 4660. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. [1927] 1949. The unconscious patterning of behavior in society. In Mandelbaum, D., ed., Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, pp. 544–55. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. [1931] 1964. Conceptual categories in primitive languages. In Hymes, D., ed., Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology, p. 128. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Saussure, F.. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70(6):1075–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1986. The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9:111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1988. Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A. J., eds., Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, pp. 89135. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., and Teasley, S., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, pp. 150–71. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.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. 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26:99128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1995. Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28:185211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102(1):161216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23(3):499545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2005. On complainability. Social Problems 52(3):449–76.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. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, pp. 7096. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 2009. Prolegomena to the analysis of action(s) in talk-in-interaction. Paper presented at the LISO, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Schegloff, E. A., and Lerner, G. H.. 2009. Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2):91115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., and Sacks, H.. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8:289327.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
Schelling, T. C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schutz, A. 1967. Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1976. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1):123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1979. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 2006. Social ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological Theory 6:1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2007a. Repairing person reference in a small Caribbean community. In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T., eds., Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, pp. 281308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2007b. Comparative studies in conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 36:229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2009a. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2009b. Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2009c. Language-specific resources in repair and assessments. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 303–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2010a. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2010b. ‘D’you understand that honey?’: Gender and participation in conversation. In Stokoe, E. and Speer, S., eds., Conversation and Gender, pp. 183209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2012a. ‘Who knows best?’: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 3(2):294320. doi: 10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2012b. Declaratives, questioning, defeasibility. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):5360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2014. The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., and Sidnell, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 364–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J., and Enfield, N. J.. 2012. Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology 53:302–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J., and Shohet, M.. 2013. The problem of peers in Vietnamese interaction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19(3):618–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J., and Stivers, T.. 2012. Conversation analysis as an approach. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 17. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. and Selby, H., eds., Meaning in Anthropology, pp. 1155. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P. R., Hanks, W. F., and Hofbauer, C. L., eds., The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, pp. 193247. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1987. The three faces of ‘function’: Preliminaries to a psychology of language. In Hickmann, M., ed., Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought, pp. 1738. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. 1996. On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar, pp. 277327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. 2001. Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 405–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., and Hakulinen, A.. 2009. Alternative responses to assessments. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 281303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steensig, J., and Heinemann, T.. 2013. When ‘yes’ is not enough – as an answer to a yes/no question. In Reed, B. Szczepek and Raymond, G., eds., Units of Talk: Units of Action, pp. 207–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2):131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. 2011. Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. pp. 82106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., and Enfield, N. J.. 2010. A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42:2620–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., et al. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(26):10587–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stivers, T., and Hayashi, M.. 2010. Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39(1):138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J. (eds.). 2011. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., and Robinson, J. D.. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35(3):367–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., and Rossano, F.. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1):331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., and Sidnell, J.. 2016. Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(2):148–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L. A. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tambiah, S. J. 1979. A performative approach to ritual. Proceedings of the British Academy 65:113–69; also in Culture, Thought and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective, pp. 123–66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tambiah, S. J. 1985. Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanney, J. 2009. Rethinking Ryle: A Critical Discussion of the Concept of Mind. Included in The Concept of Mind (60th Anniversary Edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B., and Couper-Kuhlen, E.. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2009. Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., and Moll, H.. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(5):664–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velleman, J. David. 2015. Foundations of Moral Relativism. Open Book Publishers. www.openbookpublishers.com/reader/181#page/1/mode/2up.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, M. 1989. Free Word Order: Its Syntax and Discourse Functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Weber, M. [1947] 1961. Social action and its types. In Parsons, T., Shils, E., Naegele, K. D., and Pitts, J. R., eds., Theories of Society, Vol. I, pp. 173–9. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. [1939] 1956a. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Carroll, John, ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, pp. 134–59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. [1940] 1956b. Science and linguistics. In Carroll, J., ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, pp.207–19. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. [1945] 1956c. Grammatical categories. In Carroll, J., ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, pp.87101. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1987. English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 2003. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Expanded 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 2010. Experience, Evidence, and Sense: The Hidden Cultural Legacy of English. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M., Wu, L., Wade, A., and Boroditsky, L.. 2007. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104(19):7780–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winford, D. 1993. Predication in Caribbean English Creoles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations, ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and Rhees, R., trans. Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1967. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Zettel, ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and von Wright, G. H., trans. Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On Certainty [Uber Gewissheit], ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and von Wright, G. H., trans. D. P. and Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. [1956] 1978. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, ed. von Wright, G. H., Rhees, R., and Anscombe, G. E. M., trans. Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1980. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. II, ed. von Wright, G. H. and Nyman, H., trans. Luckhardt, C. G. and Aue, M. A. E.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. 2016. Requesting Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J., and Ogiermann, E.. 2013. Responsibility and action: Invariants and diversity in object requests in Polish and British English interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(3):256–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J., and Rossi, G.. 2016. Assistance and other forms of cooperative engagement. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):20–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar