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
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-nlvjk Total loading time: 1.041 Render date: 2022-05-19T19:54:58.937Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }
The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation
Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

Book contents

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2011

Edited by
Tanya Stivers ,
Lorenza Mondada  and
Jakob Steensig
Tanya Stivers
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Lorenza Mondada
Affiliation:
Université Lumière Lyon II
Jakob Steensig
Affiliation:
Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
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
The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation , pp. 313 - 332
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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.)

Purchase

Buy Book

Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

References

Aijmer, K. (1977). “Partiklarna ju och väl [The particles ju and väl].” Nysvenska Studier 57: 205–216.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (1996). “I think – an English modal particle.” In Swan, T. and Westvik, O. J. (eds.) Modality in Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allan, R., Holmes, P. and Lundskær-Nielsen, T. (1995). Danish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Antinucci, F. and Miller, R. (1975). “How children talk about what happened.” Journal of Child Language 3: 167–189.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1995). “The pragmatics of code-switching: a sequential approach.” In
 Milroy, L. and Muysken, P. (eds.) One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Codeswitching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1961). “A plea for excuses.” In Urmson, J. O. and Warnock, G. J. (eds.) Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 123–152.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How To Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1971) [1963]. “Performative-constative.” In Searle, J. R. (ed.) The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The Essential Difference. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Barth, F. (2002). “An anthropology of knowledge.” Current Anthropology 43: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L. and Johnson, T. (2000). “Listeners as co-narrators.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6): 941–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beach, W. and Dixson, C. N. (2001). “Revealing moments: formulating understandings of adverse experiences in a health appraisal interview.” Social Science and Medicine 52: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, W. and Metzger, T. R. (1997). “Claiming insufficient knowledge”. Human Communication Research 23(4): 562–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, G. (2003). Visible Thought: The New Psychology of Body Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Betz, E. and Golato, A. (2008). “Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: the German token ‘achja.’” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1): 58–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B. (2009). “Beyond answering: repeat-prefaced responses in conversation.” Communication Monographs 76(2): 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. (2006). “Culture and the evolution of the human social instincts.” In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. London: Berg, pp. 453–477.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. B. (2000). Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. (in press). “The cultural organization of attention.” In Ochs, E., 
Duranti, A. and Schieffelin, B. (eds.) Handbook of Language Socialization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view.” In Li, C. (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1986). “Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing.” In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.) Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 261–272.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cheng, C. (1987). “Shuujoshi: hanashite to kikite no ninshiki no gyappu o umeru tame no bun-setsuji [Sentence-final particles: sentence clitics for closing the gap between the speaker's and the hearer's recognition].” Nihongogaku 6: 93–109.Google Scholar
Chevalier, F. (2008). “Unfinished turns in French conversation: how context matters.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, R. Z. and Christensen, L. (2005). Dansk grammatik [Danish Grammar]. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2001). “Answers and evasions.” Language in Society 30(3): 403–442.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2002). “Sequence and solidarity.” In Lawler, E. J. and Thye, S. R. (eds.) Advances in Group Processes: Group Cohesion, Trust, and Solidarity. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 229–253.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2010). “Address terms in the service of other actions: the case of news interview talk.” Discourse and Communication 4: 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. and Heritage, J. (2002). “Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan.” Journal of Communication 52(4): 749–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2006). “Indexing stance: reported speech as an interactional evidential.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(5): 569–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (ed.) (1986). Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). “A sequential approach to affect: the case of ‘disappointment.’” In Haakana, M., Laakso, M. and Lindstrom, J. (eds.) Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura (Finnish Literature Society), pp. 94–123.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. and Drew, P. (2008). “Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2): 129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danby, S. and Baker, C. (1998). “‘What's the problem?’ Restoring social order in the pre-school classroom.” In Hutchby, I. and Moran-Ellis, J. (eds.) Children and Social Competence: Arenas of Action. London: Falmer, pp. 157–186.Google 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: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–128.Google Scholar
Haan, F. (2008). “Semantic distinctions of evidentiality.” In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. and Comrie, B. (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, ch. 77.Google Scholar
Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H. and Enfield, N. J. (2006). “Projecting the end of a speaker's turn: a cognitive cornerstone of conversation.” Language 82(3): 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diani, G. (2004). “The discourse functions of I don't know in English conversation.” In Aijmer, K. and Stenström, A. -B. (eds.) Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1991). “Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions.” In Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1992). “Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape.” In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 470–520.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1993). “Complaints about transgression and misconduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1997). “‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. and Walker, T. (2008). “Going too far: complaining, escalating and disaffiliation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2400–2414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1988). Primate Social Systems. London: Croom Helm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1915). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1997) [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Egbert, M. (1997). “Schisming: the collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 30: 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, N. and Fabes, R. A. (1990). “Empathy: conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior.” Motivation and Emotion 14: 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmertsen, S. and Heinemann, T. (2010). “Realization as a device for remedying problems of affiliation in interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 3(2): 109–132.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. Oxford: Berg, pp. 399–430.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2007). A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2009). The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, M. (1988). “Ju, väl, då, va, alltså: en studie av talaktsadverbial i stockholmskt talspråk [Ju, väl, då, va, alltså: a study of speech act adverbials in Stockholm spoken language].” Studier i stockholmsspråk 1. (Meddelanden från Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Stockholm universitet 26. Stockholm: Univ. Inst. för nordiska språk.)Google Scholar
Erman, B. (2001). “Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1337–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T. and Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. P. (1981). Social Cognition. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. (2001). “Evidentiality: authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2): 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. and Schrock, J. C. (2002). “Basic meanings of you know and I mean.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 727–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franckel, J. J. and Lebaud, D. (1990). Les Figures du sujet: à propos des verbes de perception, sentiment, connaissance. Paris-Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Freese, J. and Maynard, D. W. (1998). “Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation.” Language in Society 27: 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1952). “The perception of the other: a study in social order.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M. and Livingston, E. (1981). “The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. and Wieder, D. L. (1992). “Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis.” In Watson, G. and Seiler, R. M. (eds.) Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 175–206.Google Scholar
Gartrell, D. (2004). The Power of Guidance: Teaching Social–Emotional Skills in the Early Childhood Classroom. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Learning.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gill, V. (1998). “Doing attributions in medical interaction: patients' explanations for illness and doctors' responses.” Social Psychology Quarterly 61: 342–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, V. and Maynard, D. W. (2006). “Explaining illness: patients' proposals and physicians' responses.” In Heritage, J. and Maynard, Douglas (eds.) Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 115–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1982). “Evidentiality and epistemic space.” Studies in Language 6: 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, Code, and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971a). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971b). “Remedial interchanges.” In Goffman, E., Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 95–187.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Golato, A. and Betz, E. (2008). “German ach and achso in repair uptake: resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, A. and Fagyal, Z. (2008). “Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody: a conversation analytic perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(3): 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, L. R. (1998). Child's Play: Myth, Mimesis and Make-believe. Oxford New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. (1963). Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Göncü, A. (1987). “Toward an interactional model of development changes in social pretend play.” In Katz, L. (ed.) Current Topics in Early Childhood Education. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 108–125.Google Scholar
Göncü, A. (1993). “Development of intersubjectivity in social pretend play.” Human Development 36(4): 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). “The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation.” In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
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, C. (1984). “Notes on story structure and the organization of participation.” In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 225–246.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). “Between and within: alternative treatments of continuers and assessments.” Human Studies 9: 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1987). “Forgetfulness as an interactive resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2): 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). “Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle 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): 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1992). “Assessments and the construction of context.” In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.) Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–189.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (2004). “Participation.” In Duranti, A. (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 222–244.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1980). “Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, E. N.(ed.) (1995). Social Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation.” In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and semantics: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haakana, M. (2001). “Laughter as a patient's resource: dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction.” Text 21(1/2): 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A. (2001a) [1976]. “Liitepartikkelin -han/-hän syntaksia ja pragmatiikkaa [On the syntax and pragmatics of the clitic -han/-hän].” In Laitinen, L., Nuolijärvi, P., Sorjonen, M.-L. and Vilkuna, M. (eds.) Lukemisto. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisunden Seura (Finnish Literature Society), pp. 44–90.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. (2001b). “Minimal and non-minimal answers to questions.” Pragmatics 11: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A. and Steensig, J. (in preparation). “Ingressive speech in interaction.” Manuscript, University of Helsinki.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1996). “Exorcism and the description of participant roles.” In 
Silverstein, M. and Urban, G. (eds.) Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 160–220.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. and Heltoft, L. (2008). Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. Kap. II Ordklassern [Grammar of the Danish Language. Ch. II Word Classes]. Roskilde: Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. (2006). Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: Ecco.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. (1987). “Fighting words: evidential particles, affect and argument.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Hayano, K. (2007a). “Preference for congruent epistemic stance: Japanese sentence final particles and stance coordination”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. Chicago, Illinois.
Hayano, K. (2007b). “Repetitional agreement and anaphorical agreement: negotiation of affiliation and disaffiliation in Japanese conversation.” Unpublished Master's thesis. Dept. of Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.
Heinemann, T. (2003). “Negation in interaction, in Danish conversation.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Sociology, University of York.
Heinemann, T. (2005). “Where grammar and interaction meet: the preference for matched polarity in responsive turns in Danish.” In Hakulinen, A. and Selting, M. (eds.) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T. (2006). “‘Will you or can't you?’: displaying entitlement in interrogative requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T. (2008). “Questions of accountability; yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable.” Discourse Studies 10(1): 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T. (2009). “Two answers to inapposite inquiries.” In Sidnell, J. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E. and Gintis, H. (eds.) (2004). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Hepburn, A. (2004). “Crying: notes on description, transcription and interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A. and Potter, J. (2007). “Crying receipts: time, empathy, and institutional practice.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 40: 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984a). “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.” In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1988). “Explanations as accounts: a conversation analytic perspective.” In Antaki, C. (ed.) Analysing Everyday Explanation. London: Sage, pp. 127–144.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1998). “Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry.” Language in Society 27: 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2002a). “Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: a method of modifying agreement/disagreement.” In Ford, C., Fox, B. and Thompson, S. (eds.) The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196–224.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2002b). “The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question content.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2006). “Revisiting authority in physician–patient interaction.” In Maxwell, M., Kovarsky, D. and Duchan, J. (eds.) Diagnosis as Cultural Practice. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 83–102.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2007). “Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference.” In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255–280.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005). “The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1): 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (in press). “Constructing and navigating epistemic landscapes: progressivity, agency and resistance in ‘yes/no’ versus ‘repetitive’ responses.” In Ruiter, J. P. (ed.) Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. and Robinson, J. (2006). “Accounting for the visit: giving reasons for seeking medical care.” In Heritage, J. and Maynard, D. (eds.) Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. and Roth, A. (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. and Sefi, S. (1992). “Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers.” In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. C. (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 359–419.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Stivers, T. (1999). “Online commentary in acute medical visits: a method of shaping patient expectations.” Social Science and Medicine 49: 1501–1517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heritage, J. and Watson, D. R. (1979). “Formulations as conversational objects.” In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 123–162.Google Scholar
Hill, J. and Irvine, J. (eds.) (1993). Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hinde, R. A. (1976). “Interactions, relationships, and social structure.” Man (New Series) 11(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Holzner, B. (1968). Reality Construction in Society. Cambridge: Schenkman.Google Scholar
Holzner, B. and Marx, J. H. (1979). Knowledge Application: The Knowledge System in Society. Boston: Allyn and Beacon.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1995). “Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio.” Discourse Processes 19(2): 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2002). “Resisting the inrefment to talk in child counselling: aspects of the utterance ‘I don't know.’” Discourse Studies 4(2): 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (1996). “Shadow conversations: the indeterminacy of participant roles.” In Silverstein, M. and Urban, G. (eds.) Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, pp. 131–159.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, F. (1977). “Evolution and tinkering.” Science 196: 1161–1166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, J. (2001). “The dimensions of topic–comment.” Linguistics 39: 641–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). “Shifters, verbals categories, and the Russian verb.” In 
Jakobson, R. (ed.) Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, pp. 386–392.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. (1973). “A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences.” Semiotica 9(1): 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1978). “Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation.” In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1981). The Abominable “Ne”: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response. Occasional Paper No 6. Manchester: University of Manchester, Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984a). “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: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–221.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984b). “On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles.” In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346–369.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1986). “Colligation as a device for minimizing repair or disagreement.” Paper presented at Talk and Social Structure Workshop, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Jefferson, G. (1987). “Exposed and embedded corrections.” In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 86–100.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1988). “On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation.” Social Problems 35(4): 418–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1989). “Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘standard maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation.” In Roger, D. and Bull, P. (eds.) Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 166–196.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1990). “List-construction as a task and resource.” In Psathas, G. (ed.) Interaction Competence. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, pp. 63–92.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2002). “Is ‘no’ an acknowledgement token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(-) tokens.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1345–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). “‘At first I thought’: a normalizing device for extraordinary events.” In Lerner, G. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, pp. 131–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2007). “Preliminary notes on abdicated other-correction.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. A. (1987). “Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy.” In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 152–205.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (1992) [1981]. “The rejection of advice: managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troubles-telling’ and a ‘service encounter.’” In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 521–548.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. and Utas, B. (2000). Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighboring Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. and Zimmerman, D. (2003). “A child's point and the achievement of intentionality.” Gesture 3: 155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamio, A. (1990). Joohoo no Nawabari Riron [The Theory of Territory of Information]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.Google Scholar
Kamio, A. (1994). “The theory of territory of information: the case of Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 21: 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamio, A. (1995). “Territory of information in English and Japanese, and psychological utterances.” Journal of Pragmatics 24: 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanai, K. (2004). “Kaiwa ni okeru ninshikiteki ken'i no koushou: Shuujoshi yo, ne, odoroki hyouji no bunpu to kinou [Negotiation of epistemic authority in conversation: on the use of final particles yo, ne and surprise markers].” Studies in Pragmatics 6: 17–28.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on. I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). “The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking.” In Englebretson, R. (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katagiri, Y. (2007). “Dialogue functions of Japanese sentence-final particles ‘yo’ and ‘ne.’” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1313–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katlev, J. (2000). Politikens etymologisk ordbog [Etymological Dictionary]. Copenhagen: Politikens forlag.Google Scholar
Katoh, S. (2001). “Bunmatsujoshi ne, yo no danwakooseekinoo [Discourse structuring functions of sentence-final particles ne and yo].” Bulletin of the Department of Humanities, Toyama University 35: 31–48.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2003). From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2008). “Clause combining and sequenced actions: the Estonian complementizer and pragmatic particle et.” In Laury, R. (ed.) The Pragmatics of Clause Combining. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 125–152.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2009). “The grammar–interaction interface of negative questions in Estonian.” SKY Journal of Linguistics 22: 139–173.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2005). “Gaze as social control: how very young children differentiate ‘the look’ from a ‘mere look’ by their adult caregivers.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(4): 417–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2009a). “Gaze shift as an interactional resource for very young children.” Discourse Processes 46(2): 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2009b). “‘What happened?’: an epistemics of before and after in at-the-scene police questioning.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(1): 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. and Zimmerman, D. (2006). “‘Observability’ in the interactions of very young children.” Communication Monographs 73: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, M. and Zimmerman, D. (2007). “Joint attention as action.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 592–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsui, S. (1993). “Shuujoshi yo, ne [Final particles yo, ne].” Gengo 22(4): 118–121.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2005). “The semiotic stance.” Semiotica 157: 233–304.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2006a). “Representations of the world: memories, perceptions, beliefs, intentions, and plans.” Semiotica 162: 73–125.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2006b). “Residence in the world: affordances, instruments, actions, roles, and identities.” Semiotica 162: 19–71.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2007). “Agency: the relation between meaning, power, and knowledge.” Current Anthropology 48(3): 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komter, M. (1995). “The distribution of knowledge in courtroom interaction.” Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities. Washington, DC: University Press of America, pp. 107–128.Google Scholar
Komter, M. (1998). Dilemmas in the Courtroom: A Study of Trials of Violent Crime in The Netherlands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kotsinas, U.-B. (1994). Ungdomsspråk [Youth Language]. Uppsala: Hallgren and Fallgren.Google Scholar
Koyama, T. (1997). “Bunmatsushi to bunmatsu intoneeshon [Sentence-final ­particles and final intonation].” In ,Spoken Language Working Group (ed.) Bunpoo to Onsei [Speech and Grammar]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publisher, pp. 97–119.Google Scholar
Koza, W. and Smith, J. (2007). Managing an Effective Early Childhood Classroom. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. and Dawkins, R. (1984). “Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation.” In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B. (eds.) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 380–402.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2007). “Basic notions of information structure.” In Fery, C. and Krifka, M. (eds.) Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure. Potsdam: Potsdam University, pp. 13–55.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. “The study of language in its social context.” In Giglioli, P. P. (ed.) Language and Social Context. London: Penguin, pp. 283–307.Google Scholar
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Dicourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D.-Y. (2007). “Involvement and the Japanese interactive particles ne and yo.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 363–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. (2002). “Turn-sharing: the choral co-production of talk-in-­interaction.” In Ford, C. E., Fox, B. and Thompson, S. (eds.) The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 225–256.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (2003). “Selecting next speaker: the context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization.” Language in Society 32: 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G., Zimmerman, D. and Kidwell, M. (in press). “Formal structures of practical tasks: a resource for action in the social lives of very young children.” In Goodwin, C., Streeck, J. and LeBaron, C. (eds.) Multimodality and Human Activity: Research on Human Behavior, Action, and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leslie, A. (2000). “Theory of Mind” as a Mechanism of Selective Attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1988). “Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation.” In Drew, P. and Wootton, A. (eds.) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, pp. 161–227.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. and Osborne, A. (1990). “Three-year-olds' problems with false belief: conceptual deficit or linguistic artifact?” Child Development 61: 1514–1519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C. and Thompson, S. (1976). “Subject and topic: a new typology of language.” In Li, C. (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 457–489.Google Scholar
Lillard, A. (1993). “Young children's conceptualization of pretense: action or mental representational state?” Child Development 64: 372–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindström, A. (2009). “Projecting non-alignment in conversation.” In Sidnell, J. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. and Wide, C. (2005). “Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type ‘you know.’” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(2): 211–236.Google Scholar
Linell, P. and Luckmann, T. (1991). “Asymmetries in dialogue: some conceptual preliminaries.” In Markova, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Linton, R. (1936). The Study of Man: An Introduction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M. and Tomasello, M. (2007). “Pointing out new news, old news, and absent referents at 12 months of age.” Developmental Science 10(2): F1–F7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Local, J. and Walker, G. (2004). “Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1375–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C. (eds.) (2000). Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Lynch, M. (1985). Art and Artefact in Laboratory Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. and Bogen, D. (1996). The Spectacle of History: Speech, Text, and Memory at the Iran-Contra Hearings. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. (2002). “You know, it depends.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 749–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2007). “The TalkBank project.” In Joan, K. P. C., Beal, C. and Moisl, H. L. (eds.) Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Synchronic Database, Vol. I. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mangione-Smith, R., McGlynn, E. A., Elliott, M. N., McDonald, L., Franz, C. E. and Kravitz, R. L. (2001). “Parent expectations for antibiotics, physician–parent communication, and satisfaction.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 155: 800–806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangione-Smith, R., Stivers, T., Elliott, M. N., McDonald, L. and Heritage, J. (2003). “The relationship between online commentary use and prevention of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing by pediatricians.” Social Science and Medicine 56: 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. (2008). Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Masuoka, T. (1991). Modality no bunpoo [Grammar of modality]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (1980). “Placement of topic changes in conversation.” Semiotica 30: 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (1991). “The perspective-display series and the delivery and receipt of diagnostic news.” In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.) Talk and Social Structure. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 164–192.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. (1990). “‘Yes,’ ‘no’ and ‘Mhm’: variations in acknowledgement choices.” In Conein, B., Fornel, M. and Quéré, L. (eds.) Les Formes de la conversation. Issy les Moulineaux: Réseaux, pp. 251–282.Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2007). “Parenthetical sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1816–1869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H. and Huiskes, M. (2001). “Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: its use as a resumption marker.” In Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.) Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, E. D. (1996). Knowledge as Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1985). “So you think gestures are nonverbal?” Psychological Review 92(3): 350–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, M. (1976). “On questions following questions in service encounters.” Language in Society 5(3): 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, T. R. and Beach, W. A. (1996). “Preserving alternative versions: interactional techniques for organizing courtroom cross-examinations.” Communication Research 23: 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middleton, D. and Engeström, Y. (eds.) (1996). Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, P. and Lacohee, H. (1991). “Children's early understanding of false belief.” Cognition 39: 107–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2005). Chercheurs en interaction: comment émergent les savoirs. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007). “Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers.” Discourse Studies 9(2): 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2008). “Doing video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: videotaping institutional telephone calls.” FQS (Forum : Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research) (www.qualitative-research.net/) 9(3), art. 39.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2009a). “Emergent focused interactions in public places: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1977–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2009b). “The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 329–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morita, E. (2002). “Stance marking in the collaborative completion of sentences: final particles as epistemic markers in Japanese.” In Akatsuka, N. and Strauss, S. (eds.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 220–233.Google Scholar
Morita, E. (2005). Negotiation of Contingent Talk: The Japanese Interactional Particles ne and sa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1981). “On social representations.” In Forgas, J. P. (ed.) Social Cognition. London: Academic Press, pp. 181–209.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1990). “Social psychology and developmental psychology: extending the conversation.” In Duveen, G. and Lloyd, B. (eds.) Social Representations and the Development of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1989). Narratives from the Crib. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. and Dunbar, R. (1997). “Social markers and the evolution of reciprocal exchange.” Current Anthropology 38(1): 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, M. A. and Krakauer, D. C. (1999). “The evolution of language.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 96: 8028–8033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ochs, E. (1996). “Linguistic resources for socializing humanity.” In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 407–438.Google Scholar
Odregaard, E. (2006). “What's worth talking about? Meaning-making in toddler-initiated co-narratives in pre-school.” Early Years 26: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, D. K. (1996). “Two-year-old children's sensitivity to a parent's knowledge state when making requests.” Child Development 67: 659–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onishi, K. and Baillargeon, R. (2005). “Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs?” Science 308: 255–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsons, T. (1937). The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A. (1998). “Authority and accountability: the delivery of diagnosis in primary health care.” Social Psychology Quarterly 61(4): 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, A. (2002). “Agency and authority: extended responses to diagnostic statements in primary care encounters.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35(2): 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picoche, J. (1986). Structures sémantiques du lexique français. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Polanyi, L. (1982). Telling the American Story: A Structural and Cultural Analysis of Conversational Storytelling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Pollner, M. (1975). “The very coinage of your brain: the anatomy of reality disjunctures.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 5: 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollner, M. (1987). Mundane Reason: Reality in Everyday and Sociological Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1975). “Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Irvine.
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980). “Telling my side: ‘limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984a). “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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984b). “Giving a source or basis: the practice in conversation of telling ‘how I know.’” Journal of Pragmatics 8: 607–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984c). “Pursuing a response.” In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–163.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1988). “Offering a candidate answer: an information-seeking strategy.” Communication Monographs 55: 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. and Mandelbaum, J. (2005). “Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction.” In Fitch, K. L. and Sanders, R. E. (eds.) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 149–171.Google Scholar
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Raevaara, L. (2001). “Kysymisestä ja vastaamisesta institutionaalisena ­toimintana [On asking questions and answering as an institutional ­activity].” In Halonen, M. and Routarinne, S. (eds.) Keskustelunanalyysin näkymiä. Helsinki: Department of Finnish Language, University of Helsinki, pp. 47–69.Google Scholar
Rappaport, R. (2002). “Enactments of meaning.” In Lambek, M. (ed.) A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers (excerpted from Rappaport, Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 446–467.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2000). “The Structure of Responding: Type-Conforming and Nonconforming Responses to Yes/No Type Interrogatives.” Unpublished 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: 939–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. and Heritage, J. (2006). “The epistemics of social relations: owning grandchildren.” Language in Society 35: 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). “Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics.” Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Remi, S. (1986). “Étude comparée du fonctionnement syntaxique et sémantique des verbes savoir et connaître.” In Rémi-Giraud, S. and Guern, M. (eds.) Sur le verbe. Lyon: PUL, pp. 169–306.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. R. (1959). “A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework.” In Koch, S. (ed.) Psychology: A Study of Science, Vol. III. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 184–256.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (2000). Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1985). “Association with focus.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Roth, A. L. (2002). “Social epistemology in broadcast interviews.” Language in Society 31: 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, M. W. (2005). “Making classifications (at) work: ordering practices in science.” Social Studies of Science 35(4): 581–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruusuvuori, J. (2005). “Empathy and sympathy in action: attending to patients' troubles in Finnish homeopathic and GP consultations.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 204–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972a). “An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology.” In Sudnow, D. N. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, pp. 31–74.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972b). “On the analyzability of stories by children.” In Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 325–345.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. 337–353.Google Scholar
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. (1978). “Some technical considerations of a dirty joke.” In Schenkein, J. (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1984). “On doing ‘being ordinary.’” In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 413–429.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1985). “The inference-making machine.” In Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press, pp. 2–22.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987a). “On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.” In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 54–69.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987b). “‘You want to find out if anybody really does care.’” In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 219–225.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992) [1967]. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. A. (2007) [1979]. “Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction.” In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–28.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
Saft, S. (2001). “Displays of concession in university faculty meetings: culture and interaction in Japanese.” Pragmatics 11(3): 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (1997). Pretend Play as Improvisation: Conversation in the Preschool Classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). “Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place.” In Sudnow, D. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 75–119.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). “Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences.” In Tannen, D. (ed.) Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). “On some questions and ambiguities in conversation.” In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–52.Google 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): 442–457.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. (1992). “Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided for place for the defense of intersubjectivity in conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 95(5): 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). “Confirming allusions: toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology 102: 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). “Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics.” In Fox, B. (ed.) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 437–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). “Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated repair.” Discourse Processes 23: 99–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2000a). “On granularity.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 715–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2000b). “When ‘others’ initiate repair.” Applied Linguistics 21: 205–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2005). “On complainability.” Social Problems 52: 449–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007a). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007b). “A tutorial on membership categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 462–482.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: 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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): 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. (1973). “Opening up closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2000). “I dunno… A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in American English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(1): 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1988). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1962). Collected Papers, Vol. I: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1970). On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (2007). “On information structure, meaning and form: generalizations across languages.” In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.) On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, H. (1978). Transformations: The Anthropology of Children's Play. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (1999). “GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent.” Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (1996). “Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: the case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation.” In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (eds.) Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1949). A Mathematical Model of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sharrock, W. W. (1974). “On owning knowledge.” In Turner, R. (ed.) Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
Showers, C. and Cantor, N. (1985). “Social cognition: a look at motivated strategies.” Annual Review of Psychology 36: 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2005). Talk and Practical Epistemology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2009). “Participation.” In Verschueren, J. and Östman, O. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–156.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). “Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description.” In Basso, K. and Selby, H. (eds.) Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11–55.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1971). “On the learning of morphological rules: a reply to Palermo and Eberhart.” In Slobin, D. (ed.) The Ontogenesis of Grammar. New York: Academic Press, pp. 215–223.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M. -L. and Hakulinen, A. (2009). “Alternative responses to assessments.” In Sidnell, J. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). “Assertion.” In Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 9. New York: Academic Press, pp. 315–332.Google Scholar
Stark, W. (1991) [1958]. The Sociology of Knowledge: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the History of Ideas. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Steensig, J. (2005). “Hvornår kan ja stå alene efter et ja/nej-spørgsmål' [When can ja (‘yes’) stand alone after a yes/no question?].” MOVIN Workingpapers. www.movinarbejdspapirer.asb.dk.
Stivers, T. (2002). “Participating in decisions about treatment: overt parent pressure for antibiotic medication in pediatric encounters.” Social Science and Medicine 54(7): 1111–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stivers, T. (2005a). “Modified repeats: one method for asserting primary rights from second position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2): 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2005b). “Parent resistance to physicians' treatment recommendations: one resource for initiating a negotiation of the treatment decision.” Health Communication 18: 41–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stivers, T. (2007a). “Alternative recognitionals in initial references to persons.” In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–96.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2007b). Prescribing under Pressure: Parent–Physician Conversations and Antibiotics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). “Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: when nodding is a token of affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1): 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2010). “An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2272–2281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P.et al. (2009). “Universality and cultural specificity in turn-taking in conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(26): 10587–10592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (2007). “Person reference in interaction.” In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Stivers, T.(eds.) (2010). “Question–response sequences in conversation: a comparison across 10 languages.” Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics: 42(10).Google Scholar
Stivers, T. and Hayashi, M. (2010). “Transformative answers: one way to resist a question's constraints.” Language in Society 39(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. and Heritage, J. (2001). “Breaking the sequential mould: answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking.” Text 21: 151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. and Robinson, J. D. (2006). “A preference for progressivity in interaction.” Language in Society 35: 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2010). “Mobilizing response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbe, M. and Holmes, J. (1995). “You know eh and other exasperating expressions: an analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English.” Language and Communication 15(1): 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surian, L., Caldi, S. and Sperber, D. (2007). “Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants.” Psychological Science 18: 580–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svennevig, J. (2008). “Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 333–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takubo, Y. and Kinsui, S. (1997). “Discourse management in terms of mental spaces.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tambiah, S. J. (1985). “A performative approach to ritual.” In Tambiah, S. J. (ed.) Culture, Thought and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 123–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H. (2000). “The particle ne as a turn-managing device in Japanese conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 35(8): 1135–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S.and Andersson, E.(eds.) (1999). SAG Svenska Akademiens grammatik IV. Satser och meningar [Grammar of the Swedish Academy. Sentences and Clauses]. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.
te Molder, H.and Potter, J.(eds.) (2005). Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Terasaki, A. K. (2004) [1976]. “Pre-announcement sequences in conversation.” In Lerner, G. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 171–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Therkelsen, R. (2004). “Polyfoni som sproglig begrebsramme og som redskab i tekstanalysen [Polyphony as a linguistic conceptual frame and as a tool in text analysis].” Sproglig polyfoni. Arbejdspapirer 1: 79–97.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. and Mulac, A. (1991). “A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English.” In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. 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: 675–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsui, A. B. M. (1991). “The pragmatic functions of I don't know.” Text 11(4): ­607–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (2006). “Discourse, interaction and cognition.” Special issue of Discourse Studies: 8.
Vendler, Z. (1967). “Verbs and times.” In Vendler, Z. (ed.) Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
Wellman, H., Cross, D. and Watson, J. (2001). “Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief.” Child Development 72(3): 655–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whalen, J. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). “Observations on the display and management of emotions in naturally occurring activities: the case of ‘hysteria’ in calls to 9–1–1.” Social Psychology Quarterly 61(2): 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, J. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1990). “Describing trouble: practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police.” Language in Society 19: 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, S. and Kitzinger, C. (2006). “Surprise as an interactional achievement: reaction tokens in conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69: 150–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willett, T. (1988). “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, H. and Perner, J. (1983). “Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception.” Cognition 13: 103–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, R. -J. R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyer, R. S.and Srull, T. K. (eds.) (1984). Handbook of Social Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zeitlyn, D. (1995). “Divination as dialogue: negotiation of meaning with random responses.” In Goody, E. N. (ed.) Social Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–205.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). “Talk and its occasion: the case of calling the police: meaning, form and use in context: linguistic applications.” In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 210–228.Google Scholar