Aelbrecht, Lobke (2010) The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Antaki, Charles, Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke and Rapley, Mark (2000) “‘Brilliant. Next question…’: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(3): 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Antaki, Charles and Kent, Alexandra (2012) Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics 44(6–7): 876–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Argyle, Michael (1975 [2010]) Bodily Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Aronsson, Karin and Cekaite, Asta (2011) Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse and Society 22: 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, Nicholas, Hardt, Daniel, and Busquets, Joan (2001) Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18(1):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maxwell, Atkinson J. and Heritage, John, eds. (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter (1996) On the prosody and syntax of turn-taking. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody and conversation, pp. 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, Peter (2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1): 7–36.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter (2014) Syntactic structures and their symbiotic guests: Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax. Pragmatics 24(3): 533–560.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter, Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Müller, Frank (1999) Language in Time: The Rhythm and Tempo of Spoken Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baltin, Mark (2003) Interaction of ellipsis and binding: Implications for the sequencing of Principle A. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(2): 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnes, Scott (2012) On ‘that’s right’ and its combination with other tokens. Journal of Pragmatics 44(3): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar (2011) Double sayings of German ‘ja’: More observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(2): 157–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth, and Selting, Margret, eds. (2010) Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barton, Ellen (1990) Nonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benjamin, Trevor (2012) When problems pass us by: Using ‘you mean’ to help locate the source of trouble. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 82–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benjamin, Trevor and Mazeland, Harrie (2012) Conversation analysis and other– initiated repair. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics [DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1310].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benjamin, Trevor and Walker, Traci (2013) Managing problems of acceptability through high rise–fall repetitions. Discourse Processes 50(2),107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolden, Galina and Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2011) Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication 61(1): 94–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bühler, Karl (2011 [1934]) Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan (2001) Frequency effects on French liaison. In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul J., eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, pp. 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan (2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givon, Talmy and Malle, Bertram, eds., The Evolution of Language from Pre-language, pp. 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan (2006) From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chao, Wynn (1988) On ellipsis. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Childs, Carrie (2012a) Directing and requesting: Two interactive uses of the mental state terms ‘want’ and ‘need.’ Text & Talk 32(6): 727–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Childs, Carrie (2012b) ‘I’m not X, I just want Y’: Formulating ‘wants’ in interaction. Discourse Studies 14(2): 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clayman, Steven E. (2013) Turn constructional units and the transition relevance place in conversation. In Stivers, Tanya and Sidnell, Jack, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 150–166. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Clayman, Steven E., Elliott, Marc, Heritage, John, and Laurie, MacDonald (2006) Historical trends in questioning presidents 1953–2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly 36(4): 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clayman, Steven E. and John, Heritage (2002a) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clayman, Steven E. and John, Heritage (2002b) Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U. S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52(4): 749–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clayman, Steven E. and John, Heritage (2014) Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Clift, Rebecca (2001) Meaning in interaction: the case of actually. Language 77(2): 245–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1993) English speech rhythm: Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2001) Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society 30: 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2007) Assessing and accounting. In Holt, Elizabeth and Clift, Rebecca, eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, pp. 81–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2012) Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In de Ruiter, Jan Peter, ed., Questions, pp. 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2014) What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3): 623–647.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Marja, Etelämäki (2014) On divisions of labor in request and offer environments. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 115–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A. (2014) Forms of responsivity: Grammatical formats for responding to two types of request in conversation. In Günthner, Susanne, Imo, Wolfgang, and Bücker, Jörg, eds., Grammar and Dialogism, pp. 109–138. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Ono, Tsuyoshi (2007) Turn continuation in cross-linguistic perspective. Pragmatics 17(4): 513–552.Google Scholar

Craven, Alexandra. and Potter, Jonathan (2010) Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies 12(4): 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan (2010) Conventionalised Impoliteness Formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12): 3232–3245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curl, Traci. S. (2005) Practices in other-initiated repair resolution: The phonetic differentiation of ‘repetitions.’ Discourse Processes 39(1): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curl, Traci. S. (2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 38(8): 1257–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curl, Traci. S. and Drew, Paul (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2): 129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davidson, Judy (1984) Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John, eds., Structures of Social Action, pp. 102–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dingemanse, Mark and Enfield, Nick J. (2015) Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics 1: 98–118. doi 10.2478/opli-2014-0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, Paul (1997) ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28(1): 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, Paul (2005) Is ‘confusion’ a state of mind? In Molder, Hedwig te and Potter, Jonathan, eds., Conversation and Cognition, pp. 161–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, Paul (2012) What drives sequences?. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, Paul and Holt, Elizabeth (1988) Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35(4): 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, Paul and Holt, Elizabeth (1998) Figures of speech: Idiomatic expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society 27(4): 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, John W. (2003) Discourse and grammar. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 2, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. (2007) The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Robert, ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, pp. 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duranti, Alessandro (1993) Intentions, self, and responsibility: An essay in Samoan ethnopragmatics. In Hill, Jane and Irvine, Judith, eds., Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, pp. 24–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Egbert, Maria (1997) Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Research in Language and Social Interaction 30(1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Egbert, Maria and Monika, Vöge (2008) Wh-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German ‘warum’ (why) and ‘wieso’ (why) and English (why). Discourse Studies 10(1): 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elugardo, Reinaldo and Stainton, Robert (2005) Ellipsis and nonsentential speech. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Emmertsen, Sofie and Heinemann, Trine (2010) Realization as a device for remedying problems of affiliation in interaction. Research in Language and Social Interaction 43(2): 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Enfield, Nick J. (2011) Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge, and agency. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enfield, Nick J. (2013) Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enfield, Nick J. and Stivers, Tanya, eds. (2007) Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Englebretson, Robert and Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, eds (2014) Discourse participants in interaction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on subject expression and ellipsis. Journal of Pragmatics 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1976) Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5: 25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1981) How to make and understand a request. In Parret, Herman, Sbisa, Marina, and Verschueren, Jef, eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics, pp. 195–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, Nicholas (1993) Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In Foley, William A., ed., The role of theory in linguistic description, pp. 243–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fasulo, Alessandra and Chiara, Monzoni (2009) Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. (1988) The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar.’ BLS 14:35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. (1989) Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, Rainer and Graumann, Carl F., eds., Language Processing in Social Context, 17–38. Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. (1996) The pragmatics of constructions. In Slobin, Dan, Gerhardt, Julie, Kyratzis, Amy and Guo, Jiansheng, eds., Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Erving-Tripp, pp. 53–71. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and O’Connor, Mary Catherine (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. (2001a) At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next. In Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. (2001b) Denial and the construction of conversational turns. In Bybee, Joan and Noonan, Michael, eds., Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse, pp. 61–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. (2011) Multimodal formulations in transition spaces. Paper presented at Social Action Formats: Conversational Patterns in Embodied Interaction. May 17–19, 2011, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. and Fox, Barbara A. (2010) Multiple practices for constructing laughables. In Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth, and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Interaction, pp. 339–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. and Hellerman, John (2004) Getting past no. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Ford, Cecilia E., eds., Sound Patterns in Interaction, pp. 233–269. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A. (2013) Units or action trajectories: The language of grammatical categories and the language of social action. In Szczepek-Reed, Beatrice and Raymond, Geoffrey, eds., Units of Talk, Units of Action, pp. 13–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Thompson, Sandra A., and Drake, Veronika (2012) Bodily–visual practices and turn continuation. Discourse Processes 49(3–4): 192–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fox, Barbara A. (1987) Anaphora and the Structure of Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. (1996) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 9: 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. (2011) Social action formats revisited: exploring action and grammar. Paper presented at Social Action Formats: Conversational Patterns in Embodied Interaction. May 17–19, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra. A. (2010) Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2): 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freed, Alice (1994) The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 621–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freese, Jeremy and Maynard, Douglas W. (1998) Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society 27(2): 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner, Rod (2001) When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner, Rod (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Gardner, Rod (1976) Replies and responses. Language in Society 5: 257–313.Google Scholar

Gardner, Rod (1979) Footing. Semiotica 25: 1–29.Google Scholar

Gardner, Rod (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Golato, Andrea (2005) Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golato, Andrea (2010) Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies 12(2): 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golato, Andrea (2012) German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(3): 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golato, Andrea and Betz, Emma (2008) German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27(1): 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golato, Andrea, Betz, Emma, Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, and Drake, Veronika (2012) Repeated assessments. Paper presented at the National Communication Association 2012 Annual Convention, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar

Golato, Andrea and Fagyal, Zsuzsanna (2008) Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ‘ja’ and the role of prosody: A conversation-analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(3): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Jo Ann (1975) A system for the transfer of instructions in natural settings. Semiotica 14(3): 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, Charles (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. [www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/publish.htm]Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles (1984) Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John eds., Structures of Social Action, pp. 225–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles (1986a) Between and within: Alternative treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies 9: 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, Charles (1986b) Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text 6(3): 283–316.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles (2007) Interactive footing. In Holt, Elizabeth and Clift, Rebecca, eds., Reporting Talk, pp. 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles (2010) Things and their embodied environments. In Malafouris, Lambros and Renfrew, Colin, eds., The Cognitive Life of Things, pp. 103–120. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1987) Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1(1): 1–54.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1992) Assessments and the construction of context. In Goodwin, Charles and Duranti, Alessandro, eds., Rethinking Context, pp. 147–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2004) Participation. In Duranti, Alessandro, ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 222–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1980) Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry 50: 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1997) By-play: Negotiating evaluation in story-telling. In Guy, Gregory R., Baugh, John, Schiffrin, Deborah and Feagin, Crawford, eds., Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, pp. 77–102. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2006) Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text and Talk 26(4/5): 513–542.Google Scholar

Goodwin, Marjorie H. and Cekaite, Asta (2013) Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 46: 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, Marjorie H. and Cekaite, Asta (2014) Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 185–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Günthner, Susanne (1996) The prosodic contextualization of moral work: an analysis of reproaches in ‘why’-formats. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation, pp. 271–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haddington, Pentti (2006) The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text and Talk 26(3): 281–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hakulinen, Auli (2001a) On some uses of the discourse particle ‘kyl(lä)’ in Finnish conversation. In Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 171–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hakulinen, Auli (2001b) Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes–no questions. Pragmatics 11: 1–15.Google Scholar

Hakulinen, Auli and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2009) Designing utterances for action: Verb repeat responses to assessments. In Haakana, Markku, Laakso, Minna, and Lindström, Jan, eds., Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, pp. 124–151. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar

Hakulinen, Auli and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2011) Ways of agreeing with negative stance taking. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 235–256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayano, Kaoru (2011) Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jan, eds., The Morality of Knowing in Conversation, pp. 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayano, Kaoru (2013a) Question design in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 395–414. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hayano, Kaoru (2013b) Territories of Knowledge in Japanese Conversation. Ph.D. diss. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Hayashi, Makoto and Kushida, Shuya (2013) Responding with resistance to Wh-Questions in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(3): 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack (2013) Conversational repair and human understanding: An introduction. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack, eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 1–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heath, Christian (1986) Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Lena (2011) Non-coordination-based ellipsis from a construction grammar perspective: The case of the coffee construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1): 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heinemann, Trine (2006) ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heinemann, Trine (2009) Two answers to inapposite inquiries. In Sidnell, Jack, ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heinemann, Trine, Lindström, Anna, and Steensig, Jakob (2011) Addressing epistemic incongruence in question–answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 107–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hepburn, Alexa and Bolden, Galina B. (2013) The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 57–76. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Heritage, John (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John, eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Heritage, John (2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara, and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 196–224. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, John (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, pp. 159–183. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, John (2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, John (2012b) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, John (2013) Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 370–394. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey (2012) Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter, Jan Peter, ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, pp. 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, John and Roth, Andrew L. (1995) Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 1–60.Google Scholar

Hill, Jane and Irvine, Judith, eds. (1993) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hoey, Elliott. (2014) Sighing in interaction: Somatic, semiotic, and social. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(2): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höhle, Tilman (1992) Über Verumfokus im Deutschen. In Jacobs, Joachim, ed., Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, pp. 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holt, Elizabeth (2012) Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4): 430–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. (1997a) Dispersed verbal predicates in vernacular written narrative. In Kamio, Akio, ed., Directions in Functional Linguistics, pp. 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. (1997b) Discourse and the category ‘verb’ in English. Language and Communication 17(2): 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. (1998) Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, Michael, ed., The New Psychology of Language, pp. 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. (2011) Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan, eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, pp. 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke (1987) Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal–Acceptance Sequences. Dordrecht and Providence: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jakobsen, Roman (1960) Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas, ed., Style in Language, pp. 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail (1978) Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Schenkein, Jim, ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, pp. 219–248. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jefferson, Gail (1980) On ‘trouble-premonitory’ response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50: 53–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jefferson, Gail (1981) The abominable ‘ne?’ An exploration of post-response pursuit of response. In Shröder, P., ed., Sprache der Gegenwaart, pp. 53–88. Dusseldorf. BRD: Pedagogischer Verlag Schwann. [expanded Version in Manchester Sociology Occasional Papers (1981), No. 6, 1–82]Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail (1984) Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In D’Urso, Valentina and Leonardi, Paolo, eds., Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetorics, pp. 11–38. Padova: CLEUP.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail (1988) On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35(4): 418–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jefferson, Gail (1990) List construction as a task and interactional resource. In Psathas, George, ed., Interactional Competence, pp. 63–92. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H., ed., Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, pp. 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Kyle, ed. (2008) Topics in Ellipsis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kaimaki, Marianna (2011) Sequentially determined function of pitch contours: The case of English news receipts. York Papers in Linguistics 2(3): 49–73.Google Scholar

Kaimaki, Marianna (2012) Sequential and prosodic design of English and Greek non-valenced news receipts. Language and Speech 55(1): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kamio, Akio (1997) Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise (2007) The role of ‘I guess’ in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, Robert, ed. Stancetaking in Discourse, pp. 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise and Keisanen, Tiina (2011) Social action formats in embodied interaction. Paper presented at Social Action Formats: Conversational Patterns in Embodied Interaction. May 17–19, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise and Keisanen, Tiina (2012) Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies 14(5): 587–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles J. (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keevallik, Leelo (2010) Minimal answers to yes–no questions in the service of sequence organization. Discourse Studies 12(3): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keisanen, Tiina and Rauniomaa, Mirka (2012) The organization of participation and contingency in prebeginnings of request sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4): 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kendon, Adam (2003) Some uses of the head shake. Gesture 2(2): 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kendrick, Kobin H. and Drew, Paul (2014) The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 87–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kent, Alexandra (2012) Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies 14(6): 711–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koivisto, Aino (2015) Displaying now-understanding: The Finnish change-of-state token aa. Discourse Processes 52(2): 111–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William and Fanshel, David (1977) Therapeutic Discourse. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ladd, Robert D. (1996) Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lappin, Shalom and Benmamoun, Elabbas (1999) Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, Seung-Hee (2013) Response design in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 415–432. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene H. (1994) Responsive list construction: A conversational resource for accomplishing multifaceted social action. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(1): 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. (1987) Minimization and conversational inference. In Papi, Marcella Bertuccelli and Verschueren, Jef, eds., The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, pp. 61–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. (1988) Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In Drew, Paul and Wootton, Anthony, eds., Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, pp. 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. (2007) Optimizing person reference – perspectives from usage on Rossel Island. In Enfield, Nick J. and Stivers, Tanya, eds., Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives, pp. 29–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. (2010) Questions and responses in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2741–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. (2013) Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 103–130. Malden, MA, Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lindström, Anna (1997) Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Uppsala: Institutionen för Nordiska Spräk vid Uppsaka Universitet.Google Scholar

Lindström, Anna (2005) Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret, eds., Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, pp. 209–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindström, Anna (2009) Projecting nonalignment in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack, ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 135–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindström, Anna and Mondada, Lorenza (2009) Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language & Social Interaction 42(10): 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindström, Anna and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2013) Affiliation in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 350–369. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lobeck, Anne (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Local, John (1996) Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation: Ethnomethodological Studies, pp. 177–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Local, John (2007) Phonetic detail in talk-in-interaction: On the deployment and interplay of sequential context and phonetic resources. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 28: 67–86.Google Scholar

Local, John and Walker, Gareth (2008) Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text & Talk 28(6): 723–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maynard, Douglas W. (1997) The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in Conversational Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30(2): 93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maynard, Douglas W. (2003) Bad News Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Maynard, Douglas W. and Freese, Jeremy (2012) Good news, bad news, and affect: Practical and temporal ‘emotion work’ in everyday life. In Peräkylä, Anssi and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, eds., Emotion in Interaction, pp. 92–112. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mazeland, Harrie (1992) Vraag/antwoord-Sequenties [question/answer sequences]. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU. [published version of: Harrie Mazeland (1992) Vraag/antwoord-sequenties. Ph.D. diss., University of Groningen]Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza (2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 329–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mori, Junko (2006) The workings of the Japanese token hee in informing sequences: An analysis of sequential context, turn shape, and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38(8): 1175–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morita, Emi (2005) Negotiation of Contingent Talk: The Japanese Interactional Particles ne and sa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ogden, Richard (2006) Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1752–1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Overstreet, Maryann (1999) Whales, Candlelight and Shit Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita (1978) Compliment responses: Notes of the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, Jim, ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, pp. 79–112. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita (1980) Telling my side: limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John, eds., Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita (1988) Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monograph 55: 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prkachin, Kenneth M. (2009) Assessing pain by facial expression: facial expression as nexus. Pain Research & Management 14(1): 53–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Progovac, Ljiljana, Paesanii, Kate, Casielles, Eugenia, and Bartee, Ellen (2006) The Syntax of Nonsentials. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan, eds. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Raclaw, Joshua (2013) Indexing inferables and organizational shifts: ‘no’-prefaces in English conversation. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar

Rae, John (2001) Organizing participation in interaction: Doing participation framework. Research on Language in Social Interaction 34(2): 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rauniomaa, Mirka and Keisanen, Tiina (2012) Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 829–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey (2000) The structure of responding. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., UCLA.Google Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes–no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey (2013) At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: On the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. In Beatrice Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, eds., Units of Talk– Units of Action, pp. 169–206. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey and Heritage, John (2006) The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in society 35(5): 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey and Heritage, John (2013) One question after another: Same-turn-repair in the formation of yes–no type initiating actions. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack, eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 213–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Reber, Elisabeth (2012) Affectivity in Interaction: Sound Objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Felicia and Francis, Alexander L. (2013) Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(6). [http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4802900]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Robinson, Jeffery D. (2013) Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack, eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 411–465. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, Jeffrey D. and Kevoe-Feldman, Heidi (2010) Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(3): 232–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rossano, Federico (2013) Gaze in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack, and Stivers, Tanya, eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, pp. 308–329. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rossi, Giovanni (2012) Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes 49(5): 426–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rossi, Giovanni (2014) When do people not use language to make requests? In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 303–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ruusuvuori, Johanna and Anssi, Peräkylä (2009) Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sacks, Harvey (1974) An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In Bauman, Richard and Sherzer, Joel, eds., Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, pp. 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey (1975) Everyone has to lie. In Blount, Ben and Sanches, Mary, eds., Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, pp. 57–79. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey (1978) Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. In Schenkein, J., ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, pp. 249–269. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sacks, Harvey (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sacks, Harvey and Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, George, ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 15–21. New York, Irvington.Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1980) Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question.’ Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, Deborah, ed, Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, 71–93. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1986) The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9: 111–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1989) Reflections of language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. In Bornstein, Marc H. and Bruner, Jerome S., eds., Interaction in Human Development, pp. 139–153. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1996a) Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., Interaction and Grammar, pp. 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1996b) Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction, and co-participation context. In Hovy, Eduard and Scott, Donia, eds., Discourse Processing: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 3–35. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

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

Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail, and Sacks, Harvey (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Searle, John R. (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selting, Margret (1992) Prosody in conversational questions. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 315–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selting, Margret (1996) On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics 6(3): 357–388.Google Scholar

Selting, Margret (1997) Sogenannte Ellipsen als interaktiv relevante Konstruktionen? Ein neuer Versuch über die Reichweite und Grenzen des Ellipsenbegriffs für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache in Interaktionen. In Schlobinski, Peter, ed., Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch, pp. 117–156. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selting, Margret (2007) Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 39(3): 483–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selting, Margret, Auer, Peter, et al. (2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2) Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402. [www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de]Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack and Barnes, Rebecca (2013) Alternative, subsequent descriptions. In Makoto, Hayashi, Raymond, Geoffrey, and Sidnell, Jack, eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, pp. 511–541. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack and Enfield, Nick J. (2012) Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology 53(3): 302–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2001a) Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2001b) Simple answers to polar questions. In Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Studies in Interactional Linguistics, pp. 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2002) Recipient activities: the particle no as a go-ahead response in Finnish conversations. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence, pp. 164–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena and Hakulinen, Auli (2009) Alternative responses to assessments. In Sidnell, Jack, ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 281–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stainton, Robert (2006) Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steensig, Jakob and Heinemann, Trine (2013) When ‘yes’ is not enough – as an answer to a yes–no question. In Szczepek-Reed, Beatrice and Raymond, Geoffrey, eds., Units of Talk-Units of Action, pp. 207–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steensig, Jakob and Heinemann, Trine (2014) The social and moral work of modal constructions in granting remote requests. In Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, pp. 145–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Stevanovic, Melisa (2011) Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 52 [www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de]Google Scholar

Stevanovic, Melisa (2013) Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Ph.D. diss., University of Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar

Stevanovic, Melisa and Anssi, Peräkylä (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(3): 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, Tanya (2004) ‘No no no’ and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research 30(2): 260–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, Tanya (2005) Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language in Social Interaction 38(2):131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, Tanya (2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction. 41(1): 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, Tanya (2011) Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The Morality of Knowing in Conversation, pp. 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, Tanya and Hayashi, Makoto (2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob (2011) Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, eds., The morality of knowledge in conversation, pp. 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen (2005) Contingent requests: Their sequential organization and turn shape. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2): 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen (2006) Request Sequences: The Intersection of Grammar, Interaction and Social Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Terasaki, Alene Kiku (1976/2004) Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Lerner, Gene, ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. and Suzuki, Ryoko (2014) Reenactments in conversation: Gaze and recipiency. Discourse Studies 16(6): 816–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael (2008) Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uhmann, Susanne (1996) On rhythm in everyday German conversation: Beat clashes in assessment utterances. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation, pp. 303–365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vinkhuyzen, Erik and Szymanski, Margaret H. (2005) ‘Would you like to do it yourself?’ Service requests and their non-granting responses. In Richards, Keith and Seedhouse, Paul, eds., Applying Conversation Analysis, pp. 91–106. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walker, Traci, Drew, Paul, and Local, John (2011) Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2434–2451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weber, Elizabeth G. (1993) Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wells, Bill and Peppe, Sue (1996) Ending up in Ulster: prosody and turn-taking in English dialects. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, eds., Prosody in Conversation, pp. 101–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitehead, Kevin A. (2011) Some uses of head nods in ‘third position’ in talk-in-interaction. Gesture 11(2): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilkinson, Sue and Kitzinger, Celia (2006) Surprise as an interactional achievement: reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2): 150–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Winkler, Susanne (2005) Ellipsis and Focus in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1958) Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wootton, Anthony J. (1981) Two request forms of four year olds. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 511–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wootton, Anthony J. (2005) Interactional and sequential features informing request format selection in children’s speech. In Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret, eds., Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, pp. 185–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wray, Alison (2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zinken, Jörg and Ogiermann, Eva (2011) How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (‘one needs to x’). Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(3): 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zinken, Jörg and Ogiermann, Eva (2013) Responsibility and action: Invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(3): 256–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar