Ackrill, J. 1978. Aristotle on action. Mind 87(4):595–601.Google Scholar

Agha, A. 1994. Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:277–302.Google Scholar

Agha, A. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ahearn, L. 2001. Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:109–37.Google Scholar

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1957. Intention. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1979. Under a description. Noûs 13(2):219–33.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Boas, F. 1911. Introduction. In Boas, F., ed., The Handbook of American Indian Languages, pp. 3–83. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1):1–22.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Briggs, C. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R., and Gilman, A.. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T., ed., Style in Language, pp. 253–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clark, A. 2007. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Clark, H. H. 2006. Social actions, social commitments. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, Stephen C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 126–52. London: Berg.Google Scholar

Curl, T., and Drew, P.. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41:129–53.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. 1963. Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy 60(23):685–700.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. 1978. Intending. In Yovel, Yirmiahu, ed., Philosophy of History and Action, pp. 41–60. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Dresher, E. 1995. There’s no reality like psychological reality. Glot International 1(1): 7.Google Scholar

Drew, P. 1991. Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In Markova, I. and Foppa, K., eds., Asymmetries in Dialogue, pp. 29–48. Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

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

Drew, P. 2004. Conversation analysis. In Fitch, K. and Sanders, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, pp. 71–102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dunbar, R. I. M. 1996. Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. 1990. Politics and grammar: Agency in Samoan political discourse. American Ethnologist 17(4):36–56.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. 2004. Agency in language. In Duranti, A., ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 451–73. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. 2015. The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2005. Areal linguistics and mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:181–206.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2006. Social consequences of common ground. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, pp. 399–430. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2007a. A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2007b. Meanings of the unmarked: How ‘default’ person reference does more than just refer. In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T., eds., Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, pp. 97–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2011. Elements of action ascription: A generative account? Paper presented at the Workshop on Proposals and Action Ascription in Conversation, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 17–20 March 2011.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2013. Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2014a. Natural Causes of Language: Frames, Biases, and Cultural Transmission. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2014b. Human agency and the infrastructure for requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 35–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2015. Linguistic relativity from reference to agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 44:207–44.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2017. Language in the mainland Southeast Asia area. In Hickey, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, pp. 677–702. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J., and Diffloth, G.. 2009. Phonology and sketch grammar of Kri, a vietic language of Laos. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 38(1):3–69.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J., and Kockelman, P. (eds.). 2017. Distributed Agency. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J., and Levinson, S. C.. 2006. Introduction: Human sociality as a new interdisciplinary field. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 1–38. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J., and Sidnell, J.. 2012. Collateral effects, agency, and systems of language use. Current Anthropology 53:327–29.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J., and Sidnell, J.. 2014. Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction. In Dor, D., Knight, C., and Lewis, J., eds., The Social Origins of Language, pp. 92–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C. W., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., and Levinson, S.. 2017. Polar answers. Ms. submitted for publication.Google Scholar

Errington, J. 1985. On the nature of the sociolinguistic sign: Describing the Javanese speech levels. In Mertz, E. and Parmentier, R. J., eds., Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 287–310. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Errington, J. 1988. Structure and Style in Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic Etiquette. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1937. Witchcraft, Magic and Oracles among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Everett, C. 2013. Linguistic Relativity: Evidence across Languages and Cognitive Domains. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Finnegan, R. 1969. How to do things with words: Performative utterances among the Limba of Sierra Leone. Man New Series 4(4, Dec.): 537–52.Google Scholar

Fleming, L., and Lempert, M.. 2014. Poetics and performativity. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., and Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 485–515. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Dingemanse, M., Kendrick, K. H., Zinken, J., and Enfield, N. J.. 2014. Recruitments across languages: A systematic comparison. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Conversation Analysis, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Floyd, S., Rossi, G., and Enfield, N. J., eds. In press. Getting People to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., and Thompson, S. A.. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Enfield, N. J. and Kockelman, P., eds., Distributed Agency, pp. 14–38. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Garfinkel, H., and Sacks, H.. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney, J. D. and Tiryakian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology, pp. 337–66. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar

Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Gentner, D., and Goldin-Meadow, S.. 2003. Whither whorf. In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S., eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, pp. 3–14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. 1993. New Rules of Sociological Method, 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., and Pachur, T. (eds.). 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gipper, S. 2011. Evidentiality and intersubjectivity in Yurakaré: An interactional account. PhD dissertation, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.Google Scholar

Gluckman, M. 1963. Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology 4(3):307–16.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1957. Alienation from interaction. Human Relations 10:47–60.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5(3):257–313.Google Scholar

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

Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 1987. Unilateral departure. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds., Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 206–16. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10):1489–522.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2002. Time in action. Current Anthropology 43:(S)19–35.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 2006. Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 97–125. London: Berg.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C., and Goodwin, M. H.. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1):1–52.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C., and Heritage, J.. 1990. Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:283–307.Google Scholar

Goodwin, M. H. 1990. He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Goody, Jack. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Gumperz, J. J., and Levinson, S. C. (eds.). 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1998. Making up people. In Biagioli, M., ed., Science Studies Reader, pp. 161–71. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hakulinen, A., and Sorjonen, M.-L.. 2009. Designing utterances for action: Ways of repeating the verb as a response to an assessment. In Haakana, M., Laakso, M., and Lindström, J., eds., Talk-in-Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, pp. 124–51. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar

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

Hayano, K. 2011. Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 58–81. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hayano, K. 2013. Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation. Unpublished PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.Google Scholar

Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J.. 2013. Introduction: Conversational repair and human understanding. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 1–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Heritage, J. 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27(3):291–334.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. 2002. Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:1–25.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15:547–74.Google Scholar

Heritage, J., and Raymond, G.. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1):15–38.Google Scholar

Heritage, J., and Raymond, G.. 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In De Ruiter, J. P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, pp. 179–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hockett, C. F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203:89–96.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. 2006. The distributed cognition perspective on human interaction. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, pp. 375–98. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E., and Hazlehurst, B.. 1995. How to invent a shared lexicon: The emergence of shared form–meaning mappings in interaction. In Goody, E., ed., Social Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human Intelligence, pp. 53–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hymes, D. 1966. Two types of linguistic relativity (with examples from Amerindian ethnography). In Bright, W., ed., Sociolinguistics, Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964, pp. 114–57. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Jacquemet, M. 1994. T-offenses and metapragmatic attacks: Strategies of interactional dominance. Discourse and Society 5(3):297–319.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. 1960. Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in Language, pp. 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. 1990a. The speech event and the functions of language. In Waugh, L. R. and Monville, M., eds., On Language, pp. 69–79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. 1990b. Shifters and verbal categories. In Waugh, L. R. and Monville-Burston, M., eds., On Language, pp. 386–92. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

James, W. 1890. Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1980. On ‘trouble-premonitory’ response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50:153–85.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 13–23. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2013. Talking about Troubles in Conversation. New York: Oxford Unviersity Press.Google Scholar

Jones, B. M. 1999. The Welsh Answering System. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Keevallik, L. 2010. Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization. Discourse Studies 12(3):283–309.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. 1990. Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. H., and Drew, P.. 2016. Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):1–19.Google Scholar

Kidwell, M. 1997. Demonstrating recipiency: Knowledge displays as a resource for the unaddressed participant. Issues in Applied Linguistics 8:85–96.Google Scholar

Kidwell, M. 2011. Epistemics and embodiment in the interactions of very young children. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 29–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kidwell, M., and Zimmerman, D. H.. 2006. ‘Observability’ in the interactions of very young children. Communication Monographs 73(1):1–28.Google Scholar

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

Kockelman, P. 2006a. Representations of the world: Memories, perceptions, beliefs, intentions, and plans. Semiotica 162(1–4):73–125.Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. 2006b. Residence in the world: Affordances, instruments, actions, roles, and identities. Semiotica 162(1–4):19–71.Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. 2007a. Agency: The relation between meaning, power, and knowledge. Current Anthropology 48(3):375–401.Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. 2007b. From status to contract revisited: Value, temporality, circulation and subjectivity. Anthropological Theory 7(2):151–76.Google Scholar

Kockelman, P. 2013. Agent, Person, Subject, Self: A Theory of Ontology, Interaction, and Infrastructure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Koerner, E. F. K. 1996. Notes on the history of the concept of language as a system ‘ou tout se tient’. Linguistica Atlantica 18/19:1–20.Google Scholar

König, E., and Siemund, P.. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leach, E. R. 1968. Ritual. In Sills, D., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. XIII, pp. 520–6. New York. Macmillan and Free Press.Google Scholar

Leavitt, J. 2011. Linguistic Relativities: Language Diversity and Modern Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, B. 1997. Talking Heads: Language, Metalanguage, and the Semiotics of Subjectivity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, S.-H. 2012. Response design in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 415–32. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lee, S.-H. 2015. Two forms of affirmative responses to polar questions. Discourse Processes 52:21–46.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2005. Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 431–53.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2006. On the human ‘interaction engine’. In Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, pp. 39–6. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 103–30. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2016. Speech acts. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 199–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C., and Wilkins, D. P. (eds.). 2006. Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Li, P., and Gleitman, L.. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83(3):265–94.Google Scholar

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

Lucy, J. A. 1992b. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lucy, J. A. 1997. Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:291–312.Google Scholar

Majid, A., Boster, J. S., and Bowerman, M.. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109(2):235–50.Google Scholar

Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic. Vol. II: The Language of Magic and Gardening. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Morgan, L. H. [1871] 1997. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Nietzsche, F. [1887] 1967. On The Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, trans. and ed. Kaufmann, Walter (translation of On the Genealogy in collaboration with Hollingdale, R. J.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar

Norman, D. A. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. 1988. Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. 1990. Indexicality and socialization. In Stigler, J., Herdt, G., and Shweder, R., eds., Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development, pp. 287–308.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, pp. 335–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ochs, E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 407–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Parmentier, R. J. 1994a. Peirce divested for non-initiates. In Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology, pp. 3–22. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Parmentier, R. J. 1994b. Peirce’s concept of Semiotic Mediation. In Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology, pp. 23–44. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Pagel, M. 2012. Wired for Culture: Origins Of The Human Social Mind. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Parsons, T. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar

Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D. G., Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., and Senft, G.. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74(3):557–89.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. 1955. Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In Buchler, J., ed., Philosophical Writings of Peirce, pp. 98–120. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. M. 1978. Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, J., ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, pp. 79–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. M. 1980. Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing device’. Sociological Inquiry 50:186–98.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(2–3):219–29.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. M. 1988. Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs 55(4):360–73.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A., and Heritage, J.. 2012. Preference. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 210–28. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J.. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Rappaport, R. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rappaport, R. 2002. Enactments of meaning. In Lambek, M., ed., A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion, pp. 446–67. Malden: Blackwell. (Excerpted from Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, Cambridge University Press, 1999.)Google Scholar

Raymond, G. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68:939–67.Google Scholar

Raymond, G. 2013. At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: On the relevance of ‘slots’ in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. In Reed, B. Szczepek and Raymond, G., eds., Units of Talk: Units of Action, pp. 169–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Raymond, G., and Heritage, J.. 2006. The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35:677–705.Google Scholar

Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J., 2014. Conversation analysis. In Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A., eds., The Discourse Reader, 3rd edn, pp. 249–63. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Raymond, G., and Sidnell, J., nd. Interaction at the boundaries of a world known in common: Initiating repair with ‘what do you mean?’ Ms.Google Scholar

Robinson, J. D. 2007. The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis. Communication Methods and Measures 1:65–75.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(2):203–37.Google Scholar

Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B., eds., Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rossi, G. 2012. Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes 49(5):426–58.Google Scholar

Rossi, G. 2014. When do people not use language to make requests? In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 303–34 (Studies in Language and Social Interaction, vol. 26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rossi, G. 2015. The Request System in Italian Interaction (MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, no. 99). Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar

Rossi, G., and Zinken, J.. 2016. Grammar and social agency: The pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language 92(4):e296–e325. doi:10.1353/lan.2016.0083.Google Scholar

Rumsey, A. 1990. Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist 92(2):346–61.Google Scholar

Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. 1975. Everyone has to lie. In Sanches, M. and Blount, Ben G., eds., Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, pp. 57–80. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. 1987. On the preferences 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: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. 1995. Lectures on Conversation. Vols. I and II. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G.. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696–735.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. 1933. La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathalogique (Paris) 30:247–65. English version published as ‘The psychological reality of phonemes’, in Mandelbaum, D. G., ed., Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality, pp. 46–60. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. [1927] 1949. The unconscious patterning of behavior in society. In Mandelbaum, D., ed., Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, pp. 544–55. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. [1931] 1964. Conceptual categories in primitive languages. In Hymes, D., ed., Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology, p. 128. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Saussure, F.. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

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

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

Schegloff, E. A. 1988. Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A. J., eds., Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, pp. 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., and Teasley, S., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, pp. 150–71. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1992. 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. 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26:99–128.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1995. Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28:185–211.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102(1):161–216.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23(3):499–545.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 2005. On complainability. Social Problems 52(3):449–76.Google Scholar

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

Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 2009. Prolegomena to the analysis of action(s) in talk-in-interaction. Paper presented at the LISO, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A., and Lerner, G. H.. 2009. Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2):91–115.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A., and Sacks, H.. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8:289–327.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H.. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2):361–82.Google Scholar

Schelling, T. C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Schutz, A. 1967. Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1976. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1):1–23.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1979. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 2006. Social ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological Theory 6:12–29.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2007a. Repairing person reference in a small Caribbean community. In Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T., eds., Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, pp. 281–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2007b. Comparative studies in conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 36:229–44.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2009a. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2009b. Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 3–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2009c. Language-specific resources in repair and assessments. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 303–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2010a. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2010b. ‘D’you understand that honey?’: Gender and participation in conversation. In Stokoe, E. and Speer, S., eds., Conversation and Gender, pp. 183–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2012a. ‘Who knows best?’: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 3(2):294–320. doi: 10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2012b. Declaratives, questioning, defeasibility. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):53–60.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. 2014. The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., and Sidnell, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 364–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J., and Enfield, N. J.. 2012. Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology 53:302–33.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J., and Shohet, M.. 2013. The problem of peers in Vietnamese interaction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19(3):618–38.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J., and Stivers, T.. 2012. Conversation analysis as an approach. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 1–7. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.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. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P. R., Hanks, W. F., and Hofbauer, C. L., eds., The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, pp. 193–247. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. 1987. The three faces of ‘function’: Preliminaries to a psychology of language. In Hickmann, M., ed., Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought, pp. 17–38. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sorjonen, M.-L. 1996. On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar, pp. 277–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sorjonen, M.-L. 2001. Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 405–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sorjonen, M.-L., and Hakulinen, A.. 2009. Alternative responses to assessments. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Steensig, J., and Heinemann, T.. 2013. When ‘yes’ is not enough – as an answer to a yes/no question. In Reed, B. Szczepek and Raymond, G., eds., Units of Talk: Units of Action, pp. 207–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Stivers, T. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2):131–58.Google Scholar

Stivers, T. 2011. Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. pp. 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., and Enfield, N. J.. 2010. A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42:2620–6.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., et al. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(26):10587–92.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., and Hayashi, M.. 2010. Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39(1):1–38.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J. (eds.). 2011. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., and Robinson, J. D.. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35(3):367–92.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., and Rossano, F.. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1):3–31.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., and Sidnell, J.. 2016. Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(2):148–66.Google Scholar

Suchman, L. A. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tambiah, S. J. 1979. A performative approach to ritual. Proceedings of the British Academy 65:113–69; also in Culture, Thought and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective, pp. 123–66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tambiah, S. J. 1985. Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Tanney, J. 2009. Rethinking Ryle: A Critical Discussion of the Concept of Mind. Included in The Concept of Mind (60th Anniversary Edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Thompson, S. A., Fox, B., and Couper-Kuhlen, E.. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2009. Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., and Moll, H.. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(5):664–70.Google Scholar

Velleman, J. David. 2015. Foundations of Moral Relativism. Open Book Publishers. www.openbookpublishers.com/reader/181#page/1/mode/2up.Google Scholar

Vilkuna, M. 1989. Free Word Order: Its Syntax and Discourse Functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar

Weber, M. [1947] 1961. Social action and its types. In Parsons, T., Shils, E., Naegele, K. D., and Pitts, J. R., eds., Theories of Society, Vol. I, pp. 173–9. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar

Whorf, B. L. [1939] 1956a. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Carroll, John, ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, pp. 134–59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Whorf, B. L. [1940] 1956b. Science and linguistics. In Carroll, J., ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, pp.207–19. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Whorf, B. L. [1945] 1956c. Grammatical categories. In Carroll, J., ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, pp.87–101. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. 1987. English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. 2003. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Expanded 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. 2010. Experience, Evidence, and Sense: The Hidden Cultural Legacy of English. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M., Wu, L., Wade, A., and Boroditsky, L.. 2007. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104(19):7780–5.Google Scholar

Winford, D. 1993. Predication in Caribbean English Creoles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations, ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and Rhees, R., trans. Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. 1967. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Zettel, ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and von Wright, G. H., trans. Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On Certainty [Uber Gewissheit], ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and von Wright, G. H., trans. D. P. and Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. [1956] 1978. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, ed. von Wright, G. H., Rhees, R., and Anscombe, G. E. M., trans. Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. 1980. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. II, ed. von Wright, G. H. and Nyman, H., trans. Luckhardt, C. G. and Aue, M. A. E.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Zinken, J. 2016. Requesting Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zinken, J., and Ogiermann, E.. 2013. Responsibility and action: Invariants and diversity in object requests in Polish and British English interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(3):256–76.Google Scholar

Zinken, J., and Rossi, G.. 2016. Assistance and other forms of cooperative engagement. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):20–6.Google Scholar

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