References

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511486746.015

Abdel Rahman, R. and Sommer, W. O. E. 2004, ‘I recognize your face but I can't remember your name: A question of expertise?’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A: 819–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Aceto, M. 2002, ‘Ethnic personal names and multiple identities in Anglophone Caribbean speech communities in Latin America’, Language in Society, 31(4): 577–608.CrossRef Google Scholar

Aissen, J. 1987, Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1988, ‘Referring and accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics, 24: 65–87.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1990, Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1990, Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London / New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Armstrong, W. H. 1928, Rossel Island. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) 1984, Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Auer, J. C. P. 1984, Referential Problems in Conversation (Occasional Paper No. 13). Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Belin, P., Zatorre, R. J. and Ahad, P. 2002, ‘Human temporal-lobe response to vocal sounds’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 13: 17–26.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bird-David, N. 1995, ‘Hunter-gatherers’ kinship organization’, in Goody, E. (ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction, pp. 68–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bloch, M. 1971, ‘The moral and tactical meaning of kinship terms’, Man (New Series), 6: 79–87.Google Scholar

Bodenhorn, B. and vom Bruch, G. (eds.) 2006, An Anthropology of Names and Naming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. 2005, The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brédart, S., Valentine, T., Calder, A. and Gassi, L. 1995, ‘An interactive activation model of face naming’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A: 466–86.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brédart, S., Brennen, T. and Valentine, T. 1997, ‘Dissociations between the processing of proper names and common names’, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14: 209–18.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brédart, S., Brennen, T., Delchambre, M., McNeill, A. and Burton, A. M. 2005, ‘Naming very familiar people: When retrieving names is faster than retrieving semantic biographical information’, British Journal of Psychology, 96: 205–14.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Brennan, T., Baguley, T., Bright, J. and Bruce, V. 1990, ‘Resolving semantically induced tip-of-the tongue states for proper nouns’, Memory and Cognition, 18: 339–47.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bricker, V. R. 1970, ‘Relationship terms with the usative suffix in Tzotzil and Yucatec Maya’, Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, pp. 75–86. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Brown, P. 1998, ‘Conversational structure and language acquisition: The role of repetition in Tzeltal adult and child speech’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8(2): 197–221.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brown, R. 1958, ‘How shall a thing be called?’, Psychological Review, 65: 14–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brown, R. and Ford, M. 1964, ‘Address in American English’, in Hymes, D. (eds.), Language in Culture and Society, pp. 234–44. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960, ‘The pronouns of power and solidarity’, in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language, pp. 253–76. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar

Bruce, V. and Young, A. W. 1986, ‘Understanding face recognition’, British Journal of Psychology, 77: 305–27.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S. and Wade, E. 1991, ‘On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults?’, Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 542–79.CrossRef Google Scholar

Burton, A. M. and Bruce, V. 1992, ‘I recognize your face but I can't remember your name: A simple explanation?’, British Journal of Psychology, 83: 45–60.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Button, G. 1987, ‘Moving out of closings’, in Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 101–51. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cancian, F. 1965, Economics and Prestige in a Maya Community: The Religious Cargo System in Zinacantan. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Capell, A. 1976, ‘General picture of Austronesian languages, New Guinea area’, in Wurm, S. A. (ed.), Austronesian Languages – New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study. Vol. 2. Pacific Linguistics Series C-39, pp. 5–52. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1980, ‘The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative’, in Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, pp. 9–50. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1994, Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chang, S.-J. 1978, ‘Anaphora in Korean’, in Hinds, J. (ed.), Linguistic Research, pp. 223–78. Edmonton, AB: Linguistic Research Inc.Google Scholar

Chen, J. and Stivers, T. 2005, ‘Working paper on non-recognitional person reference in English and Mandarin’, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Clancy, P. M. 1980, ‘Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse’, in Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, pp.–127–201. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. 1992, Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. 1996, Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Clift, R. 2005, ‘Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential’, MS, Colchester, Essex: University of Essex.Google Scholar

Collier, G. A. and Bricker, V. R. 1970, ‘Nicknames and social structure in Zinacantan’, American Anthropologist, 72: 289–302.CrossRef Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1996, ‘Markedness’, in Verschuren, J., Östman, J.-O., Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cooke, J. R. 1968, Pronominal Reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Croft, W. and Alan Cruse, D. 2004, Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cumming, S. 1995, ‘Agent position in the Sejarah Melayu’, in Downing, P. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Word Order in Discourse, pp. 51–83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRef 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, pp. 102–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, J.1990, ‘Modifications of invitations, offers and rejections’, in Psathas, G. (ed.), Interaction Competence, pp. 149–80. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 1999, Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dixon, R. 1980, The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Downing, P. 1996, ‘Proper names as a referential option in English conversation’, in Fox, B. (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 95–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Drew, P. 1997, “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 28: 69–101.CrossRef Google Scholar

Drew, P. 2002, ‘Out of context: An intersection between domestic life and the workplace, as contexts for (business) talk’, Language & Communication, 22: 477–94.CrossRef Google Scholar

Drew, P.2006, ‘Mis-alignments in “after-hours” calls to a British GP's practice: A study in telephone medicine’, in Heritage, J. and Maynard, D. W. (eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Drew, P. and Holt, E. 1995, ‘Idiomatic expressions and their role in the organization of topic transition in conversation’, in Everaert, M., Vn der Linden, E.-J., Schenk, A. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 117–32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Drew, P. and Holt, E. 1998, ‘Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation’, Language in Society, 27: 495–522.CrossRef Google Scholar

Duranti, A. 1984, ‘The social meaning of subject pronouns in Italian conversation’, Text, 4: 277–311.Google Scholar

Edwards, D. 2000, ‘Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33: 347–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1984, Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens. Grundriß der Humanethologie. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1989. Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. and Senft, G. 1987, Studienbrief ‘Rituelle Kommunikation’. Hagen: Fernuniversität – Gesamthochschule, Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K. 2002, Language, Cognition and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2000, ‘The theory of cultural logic: How individuals combine social intelligence with semiotics to create and maintain cultural meaning’, Cultural Dynamics, 12(1): 35–64.CrossRef Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J.,2002, ‘Ethnosyntax: Introduction’, in Enfield, N. J. (ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Culture and Grammar, pp. 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J.,2003, ‘Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis’, Language, 79(1): 82–117.CrossRef Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J.,2004, ‘Nominal classification in Lao: A sketch’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 57(2/3): 117–43.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J.,2005, ‘The body as a cognitive artifact in kinship representations. Hand gesture diagrams by speakers of Lao’, Current Anthropology, 46(1): 51–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J.,2006a, ‘Social consequences of common ground’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 399–430. London: Berg.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J.,2006b, ‘Code, context, and cognition in the Lao pronoun system: Under the hood of social deixis’, typescript, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J., Kita, S. and Ruiter, J. P. 2005, ‘Primary and secondary pragmatic functions of pointing gestures’, typescript, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) 2006, Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. London: Berg.Google Scholar

Ervin-Tripp, S. 1986 [1972], ‘On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurence’, in Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp. 150–213. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Evans, N. (n.d.), ‘Naming’, MS, University of Melbourne.

Evans, N. 1999, Laos: Culture and Society. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar

Evans, N. 2002, A Short History of Laos: The Land in Between. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar

Evans, N. 2003, ‘Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 32: 13–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Farriss, N. M. 1984, Maya Society Under Colonial Rule, The Collective Enterprise of Survival. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Fiske, A. P. 1992, ‘The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations’, Psychological Review, 99(4): 689–723.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ford, C. A., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. 2002, ‘Constituency and the grammar of turn increments’, in Ford, C. A., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 14–38. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fox, B. A. 1987, Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fox, R. 1967, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gair, J. W. 1988, ‘Kinds of markedness’, in Flynn, S. and O’Neil, W. (eds.), Linguistic Theory in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 225–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Garde, M. 2003, ‘Social deixis in Bininj Kun-wok conversation’, D.Phil., diss., University of Queensland.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Gergely, G. and Gergely C. 2006, ‘Sylvia's recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. London: Berg.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. and The ABC Research Group 1999, Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1990, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1993, English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Godard, D. 1977, ‘Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States’, Language in Society, 6: 209–19.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goethe, J. W. 1795, ‘Das Mädchen von Oberkirch’, in Beutler, E. (ed.), 1949, Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Sämtliche Werke. Artemis-Gedenkausgabe zu Goethes 200. Geburtstag. Band 6. Die Weimarer Dramen, pp. 759–68. Zürich: Artemis-Verlag.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1974, Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1979, ‘Footing’, Semiotica, 25: 1–29.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1981, Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Goodenough, W. H. 1965, ‘Personal names and modes of address in two Oceanic societies’, in Spiro, Melford E. (ed.), Context and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology, pp. 265–76. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 1986, ‘Audience diversity, participation and interpretation’, Text, 6: 283–316.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 1987, ‘Forgetfulness as an interactive resource’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2): 115–30.CrossRef Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1975, ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1989, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1989, ‘Givenness, implicature, and demonstrative expressions in English discourse’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 25(2): 89–103.Google Scholar

Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1993, ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse’. Language, 69(2): 274–307.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hacohen, G. and Schegloff, E. A. 2006, ‘On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 1305–12.CrossRef Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K and Hasan, R. 1976, Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar

Han, H.-J. 1996, ‘Korean caki as a reflexive and a bound pronoun’, Master's thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. F. 1990, Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space Among the Maya. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. F. 2005, ‘Explorations in the deictic field’, Current Anthropology, 46(2): 191–220.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hanley, J. R. and Cowell, E. S. 1988, ‘The effects of different types of retrieval cues on the recall of names of famous faces’, Memory and Cognition, 16: 545–55.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Haspelmath, M. 2006, ‘Against markedness (and what to replace it with)’, Journal of Linguistics, 42(1): 25–70.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haviland, J. 1977, Gossip, Reputation and Knowledge in Zinacantan. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Haviland, J. 1993, ‘Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 3: 3–45.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haviland, J. 2005, ‘“Whorish Old Man” and “One (Animal) Gentleman”: The intertextual construction of enemies and selves’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1): 81–94.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haviland, J.2006, ‘Documenting lexical knowledge’, in Himmelmann, N. and Gippert, J. (eds.), Language Documentation, pp. 129–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Havránek, B. 1964 (1932), ‘The functional differentiation of the standard language’, in Garvin, P. L. (eds.), A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style, pp. 3–16. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Hay, D. C., Young, A. W. and Ellis, A. W. 1991, ‘Routes through the face recognition system’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A: 761–91.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hayashi, M. 2005, ‘Referential problems and turn construction: An exploration of an intersection between grammar and interaction’, Text, 25(4): 437–68.CrossRef Google Scholar

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: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, pp. 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heritage, J. 1984a, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, J.1984b, ‘A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 299–345. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. 2002a, ‘The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1427–46.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heritage, J.2002b, ’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, pp. 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. and Atkinson, J. M. 1984, ‘Introduction’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. 1996, ‘Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses’, in Fox, B. (ed.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 205–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hockett, C. F. 1960, ‘The origin of speech’, Scientific American, 203: 5–12.Google Scholar

Holt, E. and Drew, P. 2005, ‘Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38: 35–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hong, K-S. 1987, ‘Discourse binding of the Korean reflexive caki’, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 2: 196–208.Google Scholar

Hopper, R. 1992, Telephone Conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, R. and Chen, C. 1996, ‘Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone openings in Taiwan’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29: 291–313.Google Scholar

Hopper, R., Doany, N., Johnson, M. and Drummond, K. 1991, ‘Universals and particulars in telephone openings’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24: 369–87.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hopper, R. and Koleilat-Doany, N. 1989, ‘Telephone openings and conversational universals: A study in three languages’, in Ting-Toomey, S. and Kevizing, F. (eds.), Language, Communication and Culture, pp. 157–79. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. 1991, ‘Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations’, in Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, pp. 232–50. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Huang, Y. 2000, Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ide, S. 1989, ‘Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness’, Multilingua, 8(2/3): 223–48.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ide, S.2005, ‘How and why honorifics can signify dignity and elegance: The indexicality and reflexivity of linguistic rituals’, in Lakoff, R. and Ide, S. (eds.), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness, pp. 45–64 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. 1957, The Framework of Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. 1983, ‘Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset’, in D’Urso, V. and Leonardi, P. (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, pp. 11–38. Padua: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G.1984, ‘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, pp. 191–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. 1986, ‘Notes on “Latency” in Overlap Onset’, Human Studies, 9: 153–83.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jefferson, G.1987, ‘On embedded and exposed correction in conversation’, in Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (eds.), Talk and Social Organization, pp. 86–100. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. 1988, ‘On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation’, Social Problems, 35(4): 418–41.CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnston, R. A. and Bruce, V. 1990, ‘Lost properties? Retrieval differences between name codes and semantic codes for familiar people’, Psychological Research, 52: 62–7.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kamio, A. 1997, Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kang, B.-M. 1988, ‘Functional inheritance, anaphora, and semantic interpretation in a generalized categorial grammar’, D.Phil., diss., Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar

Keesing, R. M. 1975, Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. 1988, Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. M., da Costa, P. A., Leigh, A. E., Hinton, M. R. and Peirce, J. W. 2001, ‘Sheep don't forget a face’, Nature, 414: 165–66.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kim, H. 1989, ‘Nominal reference in discourse: Introducing and tracking referents in Korean spoken narratives’, Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 3: 431–44.Google Scholar

Kim, J.-R. 1992, ‘Korean pronouns caki and ku: The grammatical distinction between selective and unselective binding’, Master's thesis, University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar

Kim, W.-H. 1994, ‘Grammatical relations and anaphora in Korean’, D.Phil., diss., University of Colorado. Boulder: Colorado.Google Scholar

Kirsner, R. S. 1979, ‘Deixis in discourse: An exploratory quantitative study of the modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 355–75. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kitzinger, C. 2005, ‘Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3): 221–65.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. 2005, ‘The semiotic stance’, Semiotica, 157(1/4): 233–304.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. 1972, Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. 1974, ‘Remarks on ‘this’ and ‘that’’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 10: 345–56.Google Scholar

Land, V. and Kitzinger, C. 2005, ‘Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4): 371–416.CrossRef Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Leach, J. W. and Leach, E. R (eds.) 1983, The Kula – New Perspectives on Massim Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, C. 1973, ‘Abstract syntax of Korean with reference to English’, D.Phil., diss., Indiana University. Bloomington.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 1987, ‘Minimization and conversational inference’, in Pappi, M. and Verschueren, J. (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective, pp. 61–129. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2000, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA and London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2003, Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2005, ‘Living with Manny dangerous idea’, Discourse Studies, 7: 431–53.CrossRef Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2005a, Manny Schegloff's dangerous idea. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 431–53.CrossRef Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2006a, ‘Matrilineal clans and kin terms on Rossel island’, Anthropological Linguistics 48(1): 1–43.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C.2006b, ‘On the human “interactional engine”’, in Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Cognition, Culture, and Interaction, pp. 39–69. London: Berg.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2006c, Parts of the body in Yélî Dnye, the Pauan language of Rossel Island. Language Science, 28: 221–240.CrossRef Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C.in press, ‘Landscape, seascape and the ontology of places on Rossel Island, Papua New Guinea’, Language Sciences.

Levinson, S. C. and Brown, P. 2004, ‘Comparative feedback: Cultural shaping of response systems in interaction’, paper presented at the Workshop on Feedback in Interaction, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966, The Savage Mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969, The Elementary Structures of Kinship (2nd edition). London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.Google Scholar

Liddell, S. K. 2003, Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Linde, C. 1979, ‘Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics (12): Discourse and Syntax, pp. 337–54. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lindström, A. B. (1994). Identification and Recogition in Swedish Telephone conversation openings. Language in Society, 23(2), 231–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lounsbury, F. G. 1965, ‘Another view of the Trobriand kinship categories’, in Hammel, E. A. (ed.), Formal Semantic Analysis. American Anthropologist Special Publication 4 (67), part 2, pp. 142–85. Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar

Lounsbury, F. G.1969, ‘A formal account of the Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies’, in Tyler, S. (ed.), Cognitive Anthropology, pp. 212–55. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Lucy, J. 1992, Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ludlow, P. (ed.) 1997, Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar

Luke, K. K. and Pavlidou, T.-S. (eds.) 2002, Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Luong, H. V. 1984, ‘“Brother” and “Uncle”: An analyis of rules, structural contradictions, and meaning in Vietnamese kinship’, American Anthropologist, 86: 290–315.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1977, Semantics. Vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1995, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S. and Stich, S. 2004, ‘Semantics, cross cultural style’, Cognition, 92 64: B1–B12.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Malinowski, B. 1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: George Routledge.Google Scholar

Malinowski, B. 1929. The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar

Maybury-Lewis, D. 1984, ‘Name, person and ideology in central Brazil’, in Tooker, and Conklin, (eds.), Naming Systems: The 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, pp. 1–10. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar

Maylor, E. A. and Valentine, T. 1992, ‘Linear and non-linear effects of aging on categorizing and naming faces’, Psychology and Aging, 7: 217–23.CrossRef Google Scholar

McDowell, N. 1980, ‘It's not who you are but how you give that counts: The role of exchange in a Melanesian society’, American Ethnologist, 7: 58–70.CrossRef Google Scholar

McWeeny, K. H., Young, A. W., Hay, D. C. and Ellis, A. W. 1987, ‘Putting names to faces’, British Journal of Psychology, 78: 143–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. 1934, Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. and Quinto-Pozos, D. (eds.) 2002. Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, M., Walker, J. A., Sidnell, J. ‘Varieties of English on Bequia (St Vincent & Grenadines): A social and linguistic overview’, University of Edinburgh Unpublished manuscript, MS, 46 pages.

Milders, M., Deelman, B. and Berg, I. 1999, ‘Retrieving familiar people's names in patients with severe closed-head injuries’, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21: 171–85.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mithun, M. 1984, ‘Principles of naming in Mohawk’, in Tooker, E. and Conklin, H. C. (eds.), The 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society: Naming Systems, pp. 40–54. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar

Nettle, D. and Dunbar, R. 1997, ‘Social markers and the evolution of reciprocal exchange’, Current Anthropology, 38: 93–9.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nimura, T. and Hayashi, B. 1994, ‘English and Japanese demonstratives: A contrastive analysis of second language acquisition’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(2): 329–51.Google Scholar

Nimura, T. and Hayashi, B. 1996, ‘Contrastive analysis of English and Japanese demonstratives from the perspective of L1 and L2 acquisition’, Language Sciences, 18: 811–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nishimura, C. 1996, ‘Demonstratives in academic written English discourse’, Master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. 1984, ‘Clarification and culture’, in Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Georgetown University Round Table in Languages and Linguistics, pp. 325–41. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Oh, S.-Y. 2001, ‘A focus-based study of English demonstrative reference’, Journal of English Linguistics, 29: 124–48.CrossRef Google Scholar

Oh, S.-Y. 2002, ‘Referring to people in Korean and English’, D.Phil., diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Oh, S.-Y.Forthcoming, ‘Overt reference to speaker and recipitent in Korean,’ Discourse Studies.

Otterbein, K. F. 1964, ‘Principles governing the usage of in-law terminology on Andros Island, Bahamas’, Man Ser. 1, 64: pp. 54–5.CrossRef Google Scholar

Park, Y.-Y. 1997, ‘A cross-linguistic study of the use of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation’, D.Phil., diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Parkin, R. 1997, Kinship: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Parkin, R. and Stone, L. (eds.). 2004, Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. 1965/1932, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Volume II, Elements of Logic). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Persson, J. 1999, Sagali and the Kula. A Regional Systems Analysis of the Massim. Lund Monographs in Social Anthropology. Lund: Department of Sociology, Lund University.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. M. 1980, ‘Telling my side: “Limited Access” as a “Fishing’ Device”, Sociological Inquiry, 50: 186–98.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. M.1984, ‘Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. M. 1986, ‘Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims’, Human Studies, 9: 219–29.CrossRef Google Scholar

Price, R. and Price, S. 1972, ‘Saramaka onomastics: An Afro-American naming system’, Ethnology, 4: 341–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Putnam, H. 1975, Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Mind, Language, and Reality, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Redfield, R. and Villa Rojas, A. 1962, Chan Kom, A Maya Village. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Ree, J. J. 1975, Demonstratives and number in Korean. In Sohn, H. M. (ed.), The Korean Language: Its structure and social projection, pp. 33–46. Hawaii: Center for Korean Studies.Google Scholar

Rehbein, B. 2004, Globalisierung in Laos. Münster and Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar

Richerson, P. J. and Boyd, R. 2005, Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, J. D. 2006, ‘Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational Repair’, Communication Monographs, 73: 137–161.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rosaldo, M. Z. 1982, ‘The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy’, Language in Society, 11: 203–37.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ross, M. D. 1988, Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian Languages of Western Melanesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Sacks H. 1995, Lectures on Conversation, ed. Jefferson, G.. Voulmes 1 and 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, H.1970, ‘Doing “being ordinary”. Lecture 1, Spring 1970’, in Sacks (1992), pp. 215–21.

Sacks, H.1972, Unpublished class lectures.

Sacks, H.1972a, ‘An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology’, in Sudnow, D. N. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 31–74. New York: Free Press.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, pp. 325–45. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Sacks, H.([1973]1987). ‘On the perferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation’, in Button, G, and Lee, J. R. E.. (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. 1992, ‘Doing “being ordinary” ’ Lectures on Conversation Vol.2 (Fall 1968–Spring 1972). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. A. 1979, ‘Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction’, in Psathas, G. (eds.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 15–21. New York: Irvington.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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1968, ‘Sequencing in conversational openings’, American Anthropologist, 70(6): 1075–95.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.1972, ‘Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place’, in Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 75–119. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.1979a, ‘Identification and recognition in telephone openings’, in Psathas, G. (eds.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 23–78. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.1979b, ‘The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation’, in Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 261–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1980, ‘Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question”’, Sociological Inquiry, 50: 104–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.1984, ‘On some gestures’ relation to talk’, in Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action, pp. 266–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1986, ‘The routine as achievement’, Human Studies, 9: 111–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1988, Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1): 55–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1992, ‘Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation’, American Journal of Sociology, 95(5): 1295–345.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.1996a, ‘Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics’, in Fox, B. (eds.), Studies in Anaphora, pp. 437–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1996b. ‘Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action’, American Journal of Sociology, 102: 161–216.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1997, ‘Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair’, Discourse Processes, 23: 499–545.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 2000a, ‘When “others” initiate repair’, Applied Linguistics, 21(2): 205–43.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 2000b, ‘Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation’, Language in Society, 29(1): 1–63.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.2001, ‘Increments’. Forum Lecture, LSA Linguistic Institute, Santa Barbara, July 2001.

Schegloff, E. A.2002 [1970], ‘Opening sequencing’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 321–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.2002a, ‘On ‘opening sequencing’: An introductory note’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 321–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.2002b, ‘Beginnings in the telephone’, in Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (eds), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, pp. 284–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.2002c, ‘Reflections on research on telephone conversation: Issues of cross-cultural scope and scholarly exchange, interactional import and consequences’, in Luke, K. K. and Pavlidou, T. S. (eds.), Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures, pp. 249–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.2004 [1970], ‘Answering the phone’, in Lerner, G. H. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, pp. 63–107. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 2005, ‘On complainability’, Social Problems, 52(4): 449–76.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.2006a, ‘Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted’, in Enfield, N. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Cognition, Culture, and Interaction, pp 70–96, Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A.2006b, A Primer for Conversation Analysis: Sequence Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. 1973, ‘Opening up closings’, Semiotica 7: 289–327.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. 1977, ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’, Language 53: 361–82.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schweinberger, S. R., Burton, A. M. and Kelly, S. W. 2001, ‘Priming the access to names of famous faces’, British Journal of Psychology, 92: 303–07.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Searle, J. R. 1997 [1958], ‘Proper names’, in Ludlow, P. (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language, pp. 585–92. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google 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, pp. 231–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Senft, G. 1985, ‘Trauer auf Trobriand-eine ethnologisch/linguistische Fallstudie’, Anthropos, 80: 471–92.Google Scholar

Senft, G. 1986, Kilivila – The Language of the Trobriand Islanders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Senft, G. 1996, Classificatory Particles in Kilivila. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Senft, G.1999, ‘Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski’, in Verschueren, J., Östman, J. O., and Blommaert, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Supplement 1998. 20 pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Senft, G.2004, ‘Aspects of spatial deixis in Kilivila’, in Senft, G. (ed.), Deixis and Demonstratives in Oceanic languages, pp. 59–80. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Senft, G. 2006, The Trobriand Islanders ways of speaking. Nijmegen: Mimeo.Google Scholar

Senft, G.in press, ‘Ich Weiβ nicht, was soll es bedeuten…’. Ethndinguistische Winke Zur Rolle von umfasseden Metadaten beider Arbeit mit Corpora. ‘In Sprachcorpona – Datenmengen und Exkennthisfortschritt. Jauhrbuch des Instituts für deutscne Sprache 2006. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Sergent, J., Ohta, S. and MacDonald, B. 1992, ‘Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 115: 15–36.Google Scholar PubMed

Shanker, S. 2001, ‘What children know when they know what a name is: The Non-Cartesian view of language acquisition’, Current Anthropology, 42(4): 481–514.Google Scholar

Sherzer, J. 1983, Kuna Ways of Speaking. An Ethnographic Perspective. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2004, ‘There's risks in everything: Extreme-case formulations and accountability in inquiry’, Discourse and Society, 15: 745–66.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2005, ‘Gesture in the pursuit and display of recognition: A Caribbean case study’, Semiotica, 156(1/4): 55–87.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J.2001, ‘Rules and situated conduct: Wittgenstein's late writings and the problem of ethnographic description’, MS, 16 pages. Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University.

Sidner, C. L. 1983, ‘Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora’, in Brady, M. and Berwick, R. C. (eds.), Computational Models of Discourse, pp. 267–330. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar

Siewierska, A. 2004, Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. 1976, ‘Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description’, in Basso, K. and Selby, H. (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology, pp. 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. 2004, ‘“Cultural” concepts and the language-culture nexus’, Current Anthropology, 45(5): 621–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Silverstein, M.2005, ‘The ethics of the archive in the politics of “cultural heritage”’, MS, 30 pages.

Simon, H. A. 1990, ‘A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism’, Science, 250: 1665–68.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sohn, H.-M. 1999, The Korean language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995, Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stivers, T. 2005a, ‘Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2): 131–58.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stivers, T.2005b, ‘Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: Nodding as a token of preliminary affiliation’, unpublished paper, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Strauss, S. 1993, ‘Why “this” and “that” are not complete without “it’”, in Beals, K., Cooke, G., Kathman, D., McCullouoh, K. E., Kita, S. and Testen, D. (eds.), CLS 29: Papers From the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 403–17. Chicago: The Society.Google Scholar

Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 2002, ‘A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and non-native speakers’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1807–32.CrossRef Google Scholar

Taub, S. F. 2001, Language in the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Terasaki, A. K. 2004 (1976), ‘Pre-announcement sequences in conversation’, in Lerner, G. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Toennies, F. 1961, ‘Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft’, in Parsons, T., Shils, E., Naegele, K. D. and Pitts, J. R. (eds.), Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory, pp. 191–201. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Tooker, E. and Conklin, H. C. (eds.) 1984, Naming Systems: 1980 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Washington, DC: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar

Valentine, T., Brennan, T. and Brédart, S. 1996, The Cognitive Psychology of Proper Names. London: Routledge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Vander Meer, R. K., Breed, M., Espelie, K. and Winston, M. (eds.) 1998, Pheromone Communication in Social Insects. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Villa Rojas, A. 1978, ‘Los Elegidos de Dios: Etnografía de los Mayas de Quintana Roo’, Séria de Antropología Social, 56. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.Google Scholar

Kriegstein, K., Eger, E., Kleinschmidt, A. and Giraud, A. L. 2003, ‘Modulation of neural responses to speech by directing attention to voices or verbal content’, Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 17: 48–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kriegstein, K., Kleinschmidt, A., Sterzer, P. and Giraud, A.-L. 2005, ‘Interaction of face and voice areas during speaker recognition’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17: 367–76.CrossRef Google Scholar

Weiner, A. B. 1976, Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Whorf, B. L. 1956, Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. 1992, Semantics, Culture, and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, P. J. 1973, Crab Antics: The Social Anthropology of English-speaking Negro Societies of the Caribbean. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. 1953, Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wong, J. 2000, ‘Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation’, Applied Linguistics, 21(2): 244–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Young, M. 1971, Fighting with Food. Leadership, Values and Social Control in a Massim Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Young, M. 2004, Malinowski – Odyssee of an Anthropologist 1884–1920. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Young, A. W., Mc Weeny, K. H., Ellis, A. W. and Hay, D. C. 1986, ‘Naming and categorizing faces and names’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A: 297–318.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zeitlyn, D. 1993, ‘Reconstructing kinship or the pragmatics of kin talk’, Man, 28: 199–224.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zipf, G. K. 1949, Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M. 1978, ‘On markedness in morphology’, Die Sprache, 24: 129–43.Google Scholar