Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:48:40.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Michael L. Geis, Speech acts and conversational interaction: Toward a theory of conversational competence. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pp. xiv, 248.

Review products

Michael L. Geis, Speech acts and conversational interaction: Toward a theory of conversational competence. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pp. xiv, 248.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2012

Andrew L. Roth
Andrew L. Roth
Affiliation:
Sociology. UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551, aroth@ucla.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.'

Information

Type
Reviews
Information
Language in Society , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 117 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1995). “Discourse as an interactional achievement, III: The omnirelevance of action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28:3. 185–211. [Extended version published as “Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context,” in Hovy, Eduard H. & Scott, Donia (eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues – an interdisciplinary account, 3–38 (Heidelberg: Springer, 1996).]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1983). Intentionaliry. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar