Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T04:02:19.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - The Multiple Accountabilities of Action

from Part III - Revisiting Action Ascription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

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

Summary

In the course of responding to the many themes on action ascription raised in this volume, this chapter briefly outlines some of the main resources – both internal and external to the turn – that may contribute to the process. It is suggested that action ascription involves the integration of ‘bottom-up’ resources within the turn (including grammar, lexicon, prosody, gaze and multi-modality) with ‘top-down’ resources external to the turn (sequence position, location of the sequence within a broader activity, institutional contexts, and personal statuses and the rights accruing to them). Work on the integration of these resources may also shed light on the apparent rapidity with which action ascription is achieved by comparison with the slower pace of turn projection. It is possible that the apprehension of turn-external characteristics may interface with turn initial elements to conduce towards this outcome.

Keywords

accountabilityspeech actsintersubjectivityaction projectionturn constructioncontextaction ascription
Type
Chapter
Information
Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 297 - 329
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2010). Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for casual “okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–52.Google Scholar
Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Alarmiertes Verstehen: Kommunikation in Feuerwehrnotrufen. In Jung, T. & Mueller-Doohm, S., eds., Wirklichkeit im Deutungsprozess: Verstehen und Methoden in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 287–328.Google Scholar
Betz, E., Deppermann, A., Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds. (2021). OKAY across Languages: Toward a Comparative Approach to Its Use in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bögels, S., Casillas, M. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Planning versus comprehension in turn-taking: Fast responders show reduced anticipatory processing of the question. Neuropsychologia, 109 , 295–310.Google Scholar
Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. & Levinson, S. C. (2019). Conversational expectations get revised as response latencies unfold. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(6), 1–14.Google Scholar
Bögels, S., Magyari, L. & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation. Scientific Reports, 5, 12881.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language, 37, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30, 403–42.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Fox, M. P. (2017). Hardballs and softballs: Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning. Journal of Language and Politics, 16, 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1984). A new look at contrastive intonation. In Watts, R. J. & Weidmann, U., eds., Modes of Interpretation: Essays Presented to Ernst Leisi on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society, 30, 29–53.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation: The case of new beginnings. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ford, C., eds., Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 335–76.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of “disappointment.” In Haakana, M., Laakso, M. & Lindstrom, J., eds., Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura (Finnish Literature Society), pp. 94–123.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In De Ruiter, J.-P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–45.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. A. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–28.Google Scholar
De Ruiter, J.-P., Mitterer, J. P. & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82, 515–35.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2013). Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Schmidt, A. (2021). Micro-sequential coordination in bodily early responses. Discourse Processes 58(4), 372–396, doi:10.1080/0163853X.2020.1842630.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Streeck, J., eds. (2018). Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In Glenn, P., Lebaron, C. & Mandelbaum, J., eds., Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 293–308.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 131–49.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Drew, P., Walker, T. & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G. & Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–94.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1981). How to make and understand a request. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M. & Verschueren, J., eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G. & Enfield, N. J., eds. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–84.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1952). The perception of the other: A study in social order. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In Mckinney, J. D. & Tiryakian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts, pp. 337–66.Google Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1988). On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 467–85.Google Scholar
Gisladottir, R. S., Bögels, S. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialog. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00034.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. Psychiatry, 18, 213–31.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 1–54.Google Scholar
Guthrie, A. (1997). On the systematic deployment of okay and mmhmm in academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7, 397–415.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2004a). Discourse within a sentence: An exploration of postpositions in Japanese as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 33, 343–76.Google Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2004b). Projection and grammar: Notes on the “action-projecting” use of the distal demonstrative are in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1337–74.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). 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: A Casebook of Methods. London: Sage, pp. 127–44.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013a). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15, 547–74.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013b). Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 331–7.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. E. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Maynard, D. W. (2006). Problems and prospects in the study of physician-patient interaction: 30 years of research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 351–74.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Maynard, D. W. (2021). Harold Garfinkel and ethnomethodology’s legacies: Introduction. In Maynard, D. W. & Heritage, J., eds., Harold Garfinkel: Praxis, Social Order and Ethnomethodology’s Legacies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Robinson, J. D. (n.d.). Expanded responses in primary care problem presentations. Unpublished Ms. UCLA Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds. (2018). Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. N. (1992). Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Jacobs, J., ed., Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 112–41.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S. (2009). Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46, 226–46.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47–96.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1980a). End of Grant Report on Conversations in which “Troubles” or “Anxieties” are Expressed (HR 4805/2). London: Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1980b). On “trouble-premonitory” response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 153–85.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1983). Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation: “Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset” and “On a failed hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as overlap-vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28. Tilburg: University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on “latency” in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9, 153–83.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–41.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a “standard maximum” silence of approximately one second in conversation. In Roger, D. & Bull, P., eds., Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 166–96.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2013). Turn-opening smiles: Facial expression constructing emotional transition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 21–42.Google Scholar
Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2014). Foreshadowing a problem: Turn-opening frowns in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 132–47.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 12–32.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52, 255–89.Google Scholar
Kim, H. R. S. & Kuroshima, S., eds. (2013). Turn beginnings in interaction: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 267–73.Google Scholar
Kim, K.-H. (1999). Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies, 22, 425–46.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn-space of another speaker. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–76.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–56.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisa, M. & Verschueren, J., eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 473–92.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2017). Speech acts. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 492–508.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011). The management of knowledge discrepancies and of epistemic changes in institutional interactions. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2012). Garden lessons: Embodied action and joint attention in extended sequences. In Nasu, H. & Waksler, F. C., eds., Interaction and Everyday Life: Phenomenological and Ethnomethodological Essays in honor of George Psathas. Plymouth: Lexington, pp. 279–96.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013). Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visits. Discourse Studies, 15, 597–626.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014a). Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the kitchen. In Nevile, M., Heinemann, T., Haddington, P. & Rauniomaa, M., eds., Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity, 199–226.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–56.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2017). Walking and talking together: Questions/answers and mobile participation in guided visits. Social Science Information, 56, 220–53.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2021). How early can embodied responses be? Issues in time and sequentiality. Discourse Processes, 58(4), 397–418.Google Scholar
Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1752–75.Google Scholar
Park, Y. (2014). Openings in Korean primary care discourse: Where does it hurt? Discourse and Cognition 담화와인지, 21, 29–56.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual conversation. Language & Communication, 42, 50–68.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2017). Indexing a contrast: The do-construction in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 118, 22–37.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2019). Intersubjectivity, normativity and grammar. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82, 182–204.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2020). Tense and aspect in sequences of action. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W., Clift, R. & Heritage, J. (2021). Reference without anaphora: On agency through grammar. Journal of Linguistics, doi:10.1515/ling-2021-0058.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. & Stivers, T. (2016). Off-record account solicitations. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–53.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2016). Closing matters: Alignment and misalignment in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction. Discourse Studies, 18(6), 716–36.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (1998). Getting down to business: Talk, gaze, and body orientation during openings of doctor–patient consultations. Human Communication Research, 25, 97–123.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2003). An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation. Health Communication, 15, 27–57.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2006). Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In Heritage, J. & Maynard, D., eds., Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 22–47.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. ed. (2016). Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2020). Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(2), 197–222.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. & Heritage, J. (2005). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: The completion relevance of current symptoms. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 481–93.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. & Stivers, T. (2001). Achieving activity transitions in primary-care encounters: From history taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research, 27, 253–98.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B., eds., Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 308–29.Google Scholar
Rossano, F., Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. In Sidnell, J., ed. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–249.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (2018). Composite social actions: The case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 379–97.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (in press). Systems of Social Action: The Case of Requesting in Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J., eds., Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337–53.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J., eds., Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 54–69.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Irvington, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992a). To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In Parret, H. & Verschueren, J., eds., (On) Searle On Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–28.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992b). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–345.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Thompson, S. & Schegloff, E., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 41, 235–63.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2011). Word repeats as unit ends. Discourse Studies, 13, 367–80.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 91–115.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, L. M. 2018. Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 5(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
Sicoli, M. A., Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Marked initial pitch in questions signals marked communicative function. Language and Speech, 58, 204–23.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds. (2017). Imperative Turns at Talk: the Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Svennevig, J. (2015). Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 1–6.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 131–58.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2772–81.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mold: Answering “more than the question” during medical history taking. Text, 21, 151–85.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. & Lebaron, C., eds. (2011). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. & Raymond, G. (2013). The question of units for language, action and interaction. In Szczepek Reed, B. & Raymond, G., eds., Units of Talk – Units of Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–10.Google Scholar
Tanaka, H. (1999). Grammar and social interaction in Japanese and Anglo-American English: The display of context, social identity and social relation. Human Studies, 22, 363–95.Google Scholar
Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 1–38.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Raymond, C. W. & Fox, B. A. (2020). The grammar of proposals for joint activities. International Linguistics, doi:10.1075/il.20011.tho.Google Scholar
Vatanen, A. (2018). Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 107–26.Google Scholar
Walker, T. (2014). Form ≠ function: The independence of prosody and action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Acts: A Semantic Dictionary, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. P. (1991). Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D. H., eds., Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 22–43.Google Scholar
Wootton, A. (1989). Remarks on the methodology of Conversation Analysis. In Bull, P. & Roger, D., eds., Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 238–58.Google Scholar
Wu, R. J. R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wu, R. J. R. & Heritage, J. (2018). Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. H. & Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 273–98.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×