The Multiple Accountabilities of Action

doi:10.1017/9781108673419.016

13 - The Multiple Accountabilities of Action

from Part III - Revisiting Action Ascription

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022

John Heritage

Edited by

Arnulf Deppermann and

Michael Haugh

Show author details

Arnulf Deppermann: Affiliation:
Universität Mannheim, Germany
Michael Haugh: Affiliation:
University of Queensland

Book contents

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

accountability speech acts intersubjectivity action projection turn construction context action ascription

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 297 - 329

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108673419.016 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Floyd, S., Rossi, G. & Enfield, N. J., eds. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.